Skip to main content

Full text of "The action and passion of our times : oral history transcript / and related material, 1974-1979"

See other formats


rafru^ 

University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


Caroline  Moore  Charles 
THE  ACTION  AND  PASSION  OF  OUR  TIMES 


Regional  Oral  History  Office 
The  Bancroft  Library 


Regional  Oral  History  Office  University  of  California 

The  Bancroft  Library  Berkeley,  California 

Volunteer  Leadership  Series 


Caroline  Moore  Charles 
THE  ACTION  AND  PASSION  OF  OUR  TIMES 


With  an  Introduction  by 
Leslie  Luttgens 


An  Interview  Conducted  by 

Gabrielle  Morris 
in  1974,  1977,  1978 


Copy  no. 
Copyright  fcT)  1979  by  the  Regents  of  the  University  of  California 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  —  Caroline  Moore  Charles 

PREFACE 

INTRODUCTION  by  Leslie  Luttgens 

INTERVIEW  HISTORY  vii 

BRIEF  BIOGRAPHY  viii 

1.  FAMILY  AND  CHILDHOOD 

Stockton  Early  Settlers 
Aspirations  and  Attitudes 

2.  STUDENT  YEARS  AT  STANFORD  6 

Freshman  Traumas 

Allan  Charles 

Organizational  Ability  and  Awards 

3.  BEGINNING  A  COMMUNITY  CAREER:   SAN  FRANCISCO  LEAGUE  OF  WOMEN 
VOTERS,  1936-1950 

Pros  and  Cons  of  Labor  Issues 
Emma  McLaughlin 
Organizational  Frustration 

4.  VARIETIES  OF  COMMUNITY  EFFORT 

Volunteer  Service:   Motivation,  Rewards,  and  Hazards 

Stanford  Board  of  Trustees,  1954 

Unifying  Influence  of  Hospital  Auxiliaries 

Building  Organizational  Strength 

Other  Directions:   Housing  Authority  and  Public  Television 

5.  EARLY  EXPERIENCE  ON  THE  ROSENBERG  FOUNDATION  BOARD 

Charlie  Elkus  [Charles  de  Young  Elkus ,  Sr.] 

Development  of  Public  Compassion 

Prestigious  Directors  for  a  New  Organization 

Confronting  Controversy:   The  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 

and  KQED  42 

Balance  and  Variety  of  Attitudes  45 

6.  DEVELOPING  GRANTING  POLICIES  47 

Leslie  Ganyard,  1948-1958  47 

Health  Care  and  Rural  Communities  49 
Urban  Pressures  and  Youth 

Invited  Applications  and  Obese  Budgets  52 


1950s:   Interagency  Approach  to  Multi-Problem  Families  54 

Individuals  in  Need  vs.  Broad  Social  Theory  55 

Evaluating  Grant  Results  57 

7.  SATISFACTIONS  AND  HAZARDS  OF  BOARD  MEMBERSHIP  60 

Responding  to  Individual  Proposals  60 

Knowledge  of  Community  Networks  62 

Time  for  a  Woman  President:   1961  64 

Communication  and  Personal  Relations  66 

Responsibility  to  Staff:   Leslie  Ganyard  Retires  69 

8.  THE  FOUNDATION  AND  THE  COMMUNITY:   1958-1974  71 

Ruth  Chance  71 
Defending  Applications :   Innovations  in  Military  Counseling 

and  Housing  74 

New  Organizations  in  the  Valley  76 

Input  from  Experience  with  Other  Organizations  78 

Working  with  Young  Adults  79 

Expectations  of  Support  84 

Awareness  and  Regulation  of  Foundations  86 

Some  Continuity  of  Grantee  Relationships  89 

Young  Applicants  90 

Accountability  92 

Board  Studies  Community  Programs  and  Attitudes  92 

Observations  on  Decision-Making  by  Committees  94 

9.  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  ROSENBERG  BOARD:   1971-1974  99 

Women  as  Presidents  99 

Refining  the  Foundation's  Goals  101 

Departure  106 

Selecting  Board  Members  107 

Progress  and  Change  110 

APPENDIX  I  -  The  President's  Message,  Rosenberg  Foundation  Annual 

Report,  1973  115 

10.  LECTURER  IN  COMMUNITY  SERVICE,  MILLS  COLLEGE,  1949-1959  117 

Influence  of  President  Lynn  White  117 

Theory  and  Practice  of  Volunteering  121 

Staff  Standing  131 

Freedom  of  Choice  and  Leadership  Potential  133 

Career  Possibilities  139 

A  Note  on  the  Junior  League  143 

Understanding  Staff  146 

Styles  of  Feminism  147 

11.  LEAGUE  OF  WOMEN  VOTERS'  PRESIDENCY,  1948-1950,  AND  MAYORAL 
APPOINTMENTS  150 

Earlier  San  Francisco  Women  Leaders:   Public  Dance  Hall 

Committee  Issue  150 
San  Francisco  Center  of  the  California  Civic  League  Becomes 

the  League  of  Women  Voters  152 

Encouraging  New  Leadership  155 

Advisory  Board  of  Health  157 

Housing  Authority  Concerns  161 


12.  STANFORD  HOSPITAL  AUXILIARY  IN  SAN  FRANCISCO,  1956-1958  164 

Community  Goodwill,  Move  to  Palo  Alto  164 

Getting  Started  167 

Recruiting  Sponsors  and  Other  Special  Talents  171 

Interpersonal  Relations,  Developing  Continuity  177 

Transition — Hospital  Board  of  Directors  184 

Becoming  Presbyterian  Hospital  187 

Pattern  for  Other  Hospital  Auxiliaries  191 

Spiritual  Rewards,  Fellowship,  Social  Responsibility  197 
Intentions  and  Close  Encounters  in  the  World  of  Volunteer  Work  198 

13.  STANFORD  UNIVERSITY  TRUSTEE,  1954-1974  205 

Appointment  and  Fellow  Trustee  205 

Building  and  Grounds  Committee  209 

PACE  Campaign  and  Other  Fund  Raising  211 

Input  on  Construction  216 

Nominating  Committee  221 

Advocate  for  Students  225 

Attitudes  of  Faculty  and  Alumni  229 

Student  Challenges  and  Participation  232 

Selecting  a  President  235 

Maintaining  Communication  and  Varieties  of  Dissent  238 

14.  PUBLIC  BROADCASTING,  LOCAL  AND  NATIONAL  244 

Early  Years  of  KQED,  Impact  of  Newsroom  244 
President,  1972-1974:  Management  Difficulties  and  Broader 

Representation  on  the  Board  249 

Membership,  Fund  Raising,  Programming  253 

Recruiting  Leadership  258 

Interaction  with  Commercial  Television  261 

Thoughts  on  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  and  Teilhard  de  Chardin  265 
Professional  and  Lay  Roles:  KQED,  American  Conservatory 

Theater,  and  Stanford  268 

Public  Broadcasting  System:  Reorganizing  for  Federal  Funding  271 

National  Programming  and  Ralph  Rogers 's  Role  274 

15.  CONCLUDING  THOUGHTS  ON  COMMUNITY  SERVICE  278 

San  Francisco  Housing  Authority:  Minority  Participation  278 

Politics  and  Pressure  Groups  282 

Volunteers'  Expectations  285 

Government  Funding  286 

New  Ways  of  Approaching  Old  Problems  287 

Advice  to  Volunteers  294 

APPENDIX  II  -  Some  Thoughts  on  the  Establishment  of  Successful 

Auxiliaries,  by  Caroline  M.  Charles  297 

APPENDIX  III  -  Press  clipping  on  Status  of  Women  Award  301 

APPENDIX  IV  -  KQED  Focus  article  302 

TAPE  GUIDE  304 

INDEX  305 


PREFACE 


The  Volunteer  Leadership  Series  is  an  ongoing  project  of  the  Regional 
Oral  History  Office.   It  is  designed  to  document  the  work  of  carefully- 
selected  Bay  Area  men  and  women  in  improving  the  quality  of  life  in  their 
communities  through  nonprofit  organizations.   The  interviews  form  a  resource 
for  greater  understanding  of  the  nature  and  impact  of  volunteer  activity. 

This  project  had  its  origin  in  the  Bay  Area  Foundation  History  Series 
completed  in  1976  and  in  the  realization  that  many  persons  interviewed  for 
other  projects  of  this  office  about  their  business  or  professional  careers 
had  spent  equal  time  and  effort  over  the  years  on  their  civic  activities. 

The  series  is  designed  to  study  the  origins  of  individuals'  interest  in 
and  dedication  to  voluntary  endeavors  and  the  processes  by  which  private, 
nonprofit  groups,  frequently  defined  as  a  third  sector  with  government  and 
business  in  American  society,  bring  about  change  in  a  community' s  social  and 
cultural  institutions.   Thus  the  focus  of  the  interviews  is  twofold:   discus 
sion  of  the  personal  background  and  principles  of  memoirists,  and  reflections 
on  the  founding  and  internal  workings  of  specific  volunteer  organizations  and 
external  issues  they  have  faced. 

Individual  interviews  in  the  series  have  been  funded  by  the  UC  Berkeley 
Foundation,  the  Chancellor's  office,  Friends  of  The  Bancroft  Library,  and 
colleagues  and  friends  of  specific  memoirists. 

The  Regional  Oral  History  Office  was  established  to  tape-record  auto 
biographical  interviews  with  persons  prominent  in  the  history  of  California 
and  the  West.   The  Office  is  under  the  administrative  supervision  of  James  D. 
Hart,  Director  of  The  Bancroft  Library. 


Gabrielle  Morris,  Director 
Volunteer  Leadership 
Oral  History  Series 


Willa  K.  Baum,  Department  Head 
Regional  Oral  History  Office 


30  June  1979 

Regional  Oral  History  Office 

486  The  Bancroft  Library 

University  of  California  at  Berkeley 


iii 


INTRODUCTION 


When  I  first  met  Mrs.  Allan  Charles  during  the  1950s,  she  had 
recently  completed  her  presidency  of  the  League  of  Women  Voters,  lectured 
on  community  service  at  Mills  College,  and  served  as  trustee  of  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation  and  Stanford  University — all  prestigious  positions.   She  was  called 
in  to  advise  a  committee  of  the  Junior  League.   In  a  constructive,  open,  and 
incisive  way,  she  got  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  we  were  struggling  with, 
suggested  some  alternatives,  and  left  us  enthusiastically  planning  the 
solution. 

She  was  "Caroline"  with  us  when  that  meeting  was  over,  no  longer  a 
legendary  figure,  but  a  friend,  mentor,  advisor  and  sponsor.   Always  willing 
to  tackle  a  difficult  undertaking  in  community  service,  she  provided 
charismatic  leadership  to  whatever  project  she  engaged  in — and  engaged  us 
in. 

Her  activities  have  been  diverse  through  the  years.   Hospitals,  Planned 
Parenthood,  education  at  all  levels,  opera,  theater,  public  television,  public 
libraries  and  commissions,  and  foundations  have  all  captured  her  interest  and 
effort.  Mrs.  Charles  says  of  herself,  "I  don't  like  being  on  the  fringes. 
I  like  to  be  centrally  involved."  This  kind  of  significant  leadership  has 
brought  her  to  the  presidency  of  almost  every  organization  in  which  she  has 
participated. 

It  was  when  she  established  the  Stanford  Hospital  Auxiliary  in 
San  Francisco  that  I  first  witnessed  her  organizational  skill  and  had  the 
opportunity  to  work  closely  with  her.   Mrs.  Charles  started  the  auxiliary 
with  a  handful  of  women  and  built  the  group  slowly.   She  carefully  selected 
her  workers,  matching  each  with  a  task  for  which  she  was  suited,  and 
inspiring  her  with  the  need  for  this  new  activity.   The  early-morning 
telephone  calls  were  frequent,  businesslike,  and  kept  us  moving  along 
vigorously.   By-laws  were  developed,  and  extra  services,  such  as  the  library 
and  gift  cart,  were  provided  for  the  patient.   Suspicious  hospital  staff 
saw  what  well-supervised  volunteers  could  do  to  help  them.   And  events  were 
planned  which  raised  money  for  the  hospital,  but  perhaps  more  importantly, 
demonstrated  community  support. 

Mrs.  Charles  brought  to  life  an  auxiliary  that  gave  public  visibility 
to  Stanford  Hospital  before  its  move  to  Palo  Alto.   One  of  the  doctors  remaining 
in  San  Francisco  at  the  now  rudderless  institution  commented  wryly,  "We  have 
to  keep  the  hospital  open  for  the  volunteers!" 


iv 


This  was  the  first  of  several  hospital  auxiliaries  that  Caroline  Charles 
designed.  Her  recognition  of  individual  capabilities,  brought  together  in  a 
successful  team  effort,  was  repeated  again  and  again.   Social  occasions  were 
held  at  her  home  to  strengthen  the  network  of  working  friendships.   If  the 
party  was  an  evening  affair,  husbands  were  included,  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Charles 
acted  as  gracious  hosts.   Caroline  and  Allan  Charles  have  a  rare  mutual 
support  that  has  strengthened  both  of  them  in  their  careers.   These  pleasant 
evenings  demonstrated  to  us  that  community  activities  were  a  family  affair, 
not  isolated  from  the  rest  of  our  lives.  Many  a  husband  left  the  Charles' 
parties  with  a  greater  appreciation  and  understanding  of  the  value  of  his 
wife's  activities  outside  the  home. 

Mrs.  Charles  was  much  in  demand  as  a  speaker,  particularly  on  the  importai 
of  volunteers.  Young  women  with  family  responsibilties  felt  comfortable  when 
she  would  say,  "There  are  times  in  our  lives  when  we  should  not  give  as  much 
time  to  civic  affairs  as  we  would  like."   She  spoke  of  the  "giantesses,"  women 
who  had  brought  about  vital  changes  to  improve  the  quality  of  life  in 
San  Francisco.   She  sprinkled  her  talks  with  anecdotes  about  her  own  family, 
her  husband  and  daughters.  Her  very  personal  manner  of  speaking  made  her 
approachable,  despite  her  great  accomplishments.   She  sometimes  mentioned 
coming  to  Stanford  from  Stockton,  California,  to  study  mathematics — most 
unusual  for  a  woman  in  those  days.   She  was  one  of  Stanford's  earliest  woman 
trustees  and  served  in  an  era  of  great  growth  at  the  university. 

Mrs.  Charles  has  always  been  available  to  help  in  the  community  whenever 
asked,  and  all  manner  of  people  and  organizations  sought  her  advice.   Her  netwc 
of  acquaintances  is  enormous  and  varied  and  based  on  trust.  Her  open  manner  ai 
good  judgment  made  every  invitation  to  serve  on  her  "team"   a  pleasant  challen; 
Because  of  her  broad  involvement  in  community  affairs,  she  constantly  found 
new  recruits  and  helped  them  learn  how  to  work  constructively  with  others. 
Invited  everywhere  and  knowing  everyone,  she  seemed  tireless  because  her 
interests  were  always  expanding  to  new  issues,  new  involvement. 

Mrs.  Charles  was  always  well  groomed,  handsomely  dressed,  and  she 
favored  becoming  hats.   She  could  do  business  as  easily  with  a  bank  president 
as  with  a  young  dissident  from  Stanford  or  an  irate  tenant  before  the  Housing 
Authority.   Accompanying  her  on  some  of  her  appointments,  whether  enlisting 
support,  seeking  information,  or  fund-raising,  was  a  learning  experience 
for  a  young  volunteer. 

We  volunteers  also  learned  by  working  on  her  committees.  Mrs.  Charles 
was  a  superb  chairperson,  never  officious,  always  gracious  when  listening 
to  all  points  of  view.  Her  innate  sense  of  timing  helped  her  to  close 
debate  when  she  sensed  action  could  be  taken.   Through  her  example,  we  learned 
the  art  of  scheduling  and  preparing  for  meetings,  and  that  being  familiar  with 
the  paperwork  was  an  important  part  of  the  responsibility.   We  also  found  that 
respecting  relationships  between  the  staff  and  the  lay  board  was  a  key  factor 
for  success  in  volunteer  organizations. 


I  remember  when  I  undertook  a  major  volunteer  assignment,  her  first 
question  was,  "Do  you  have  a  good  staff?"   She  knew  that  without  competent 
assistance,  volunteer  leadership  would  be  difficult,  perhaps  an  invitation 
for  the  lay  person  to  usurp  the  job  of  the  professional  staff.   The  citizen 
in  community  organizations  has  a  clearly  defined  role  as  the  policymaker  as 
well  as  a  beneficiary,  but  must  learn  not  to  meddle  in  the  day-to-day  direction 
of  an  agency  or  its  programs.  Mrs.  Charles  understood  the  delicate  balance 
of  staff-volunteer  relationships,  and  taught  us  all  to  treat  these  relationships 
with  tact  and  respect. 

Caroline  Charles  has  always,  been  a  reader  of  depth  and  variety,  finding 
refreshment  in  the  appropriate  book.   Therefore,  it  is  only  natural  that 
cultural  activities  drew  her  lively  interest.   The  annual  University  of  San 
Francisco  Symposium,  the  Friends  of  the  San  Francisco  Public  Library,  and  the 
American  Conservatory  Theater  have  all  benefitted  from  her  participation. 

Henry  Fairlie,  a  British  writer  living  in  the  United  States,  wrote, 
"America  needs  an  aristocracy  of  age,"  a  way  for  the  young  to  undergo  initiation 
rites  where  the  difference  of  generations  can  be  a  bridge,  and  enormous 
friendships  can  develop  by  keeping  the  bridge  firm  on  both  sides.   "Neither 
thinks  of  crossing  the  bridge  of  generations,  as  both  enjoy  the  bridge  too 
much." 

Caroline  Charles  has  been  that  bridge  for  so  many  of  us,  who  have  learned 
to  serve  our  communities  better  from  her  example.   She  has  been  teacher  and 
student,  a  trusted  friend  and  wise  leader,  and  an  exceptional  person  who  has 
the  courage  to  make  a  difference.   Her  oral  history  will  be  read  eagerly  and 
thoughtfully  as  the  story  of  someone  who  is  truly  part  of  the  "action  and 
passion  of  her  time."   It  is  a  great  privilege  to  speak  for  the  many  who 
admire  and  love  this  remarkable  woman. 


Leslie  Luttgens 


San  Francisco,  California 
February  1979 


vii 


INTERVIEW  HISTORY 


If  Caroline  Moore  Charles  had  chosen  to  pursue  her  undergraduate 
work  in  math,  she  would  undoubtedly  have  become  president  of  Stanford 
University  or  Crocker  Bank.   Instead,  she  turned  her  impressive  talents 
to  community  service  where  her  intelligence,  energy,  and  commanding 
presence  have  provided  strong  leadership  to  some  of  the  Bay  Area's  most 
vital  voluntary  organizations  from  the  lively  1940s  well  into  the 
turbulent  1970s. 

In  a  series  of  wide-ranging  interviews  with  The  Bancroft  Library's 
Regional  Oral  History  Office,  Mrs.  Charles  shares  the  principles  and 
experiences  of  half  a  century  of  learning,  teaching,  and  practicing  the 
fine  art  of  volunteering  as  a  board  member,  trustee,  chairman,  and  president 
of  the  League  of  Women  Voters,  World  Affairs  Council,  Stanford  University, 
Rosenberg  Foundation,  American  Conservatory  Theater,  San  Francisco  Housing 
Authority,  and  KQED,  among  others.   The  resulting  narrative  reflects  the 
complex  interrelationships  within  the  non-profit  community,  through  which 
the  social  concerns  of  the  Bay  Area  are  expressed,  as  well  as  giving  insights 
into  the  internal  workings  of  successful  volunteer  organizations. 

Although  Mrs.  Charles  shares  the  distaste  of  many  for  the  term 
"volunteerism,"  she  is  dedicated  to  the  belief  that  it  is  vital  not  only 
to  the  life  of  the  community,  but  also  to  the  personal  satisfaction  of 
individuals.   One's  life  is  lacking,  she  insists,  if  one  is  not  a  part  of 
"the  action  and  passion  of  one's  time,"  quoting  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  a 
favorite  author  in  her  well-used  library.  Noting  that  Americans  are  often 
hesitant  to  speak  of  religion  directly,  she  sees  a  spiritual  need  to  be  aware 
of  and  respond  to  the  needs  of  others.  As  cities  become  more  spread  out  and 
impersonal,  volunteer  organizations  provide  an  important  way  for  people  to 
reach  out  to  each  other,  in  her  view. 

Mrs.  Charles  is  a  tall,  handsome  woman  with  a  keen  gaze  and  soft 
gray-brown  hair,  always  smartly  groomed.   As  she  talks,  one  is  caught  up  in 
her  enthusiasm  for  the  activities  she  describes. 

In  her  introduction  to  this  volume,  Leslie  Luttgens,  herself  a 
distinguished  corporate  and  civic  leader,  conveys  well  a  sense  of 
adventure  and  accomplishment  in  working  with  Mrs.  Charles.   In  the 
memoir  itself,  some  basic  principles  emerge  that  Mrs.  Charles  has  applied 
successfully  to  a  variety  of  organizations. 

Most  important  among  these  rules  for  successful  volunteers 
are:  understand  the  needs  of  the  people  you  work  with,  insure  that 
there  is  open  communication  between  volunteers  and  board  members,  and  that 


viii 


all  of  them  participate,  clearly  define  the  roles  of  staff  and  volunteers, 
be  sure  everyone  is  fully  informed  about  the  work  at  hand,  and  be  willing  to 
try  new  ideas.  "Match  the  skills  of  your  people  to  the  task  you  assign  them 
to,"  urges  Mrs.  Charles.  "You're  not  here  to  agree  with  everyone,"  she 
recalls  telling  a  new  board  member.   "You're  here  to  be  honest  about  what 
you  believe." 

Although  these  ideas  seem  simple  enough,  it  is  clear  that  they  take 
considerable  skill  to  practice  effectively  and  that  Mrs.  Charles  is  an 
expert.   This  is  the  consensus  of  fellow  board  members  and  staff  of 
organizations  in  which  Mrs.  Charles  has  been  active,  who  were  consulted 
in  preparing  for  these  interviews.   Among  them  are  Ruth  Chance,  Dr.  Linda 
Clever,  James  Day,  Morris  Doyle,  Leslie  Luttgens,  Howard  Nemerovski, 
Florette  Pomeroy,  and  Dr.  Lynn  White.   Their  suggestions  were  helpful  in 
phrasing  questions  on  specific  organizations  ranging  from  the  Stanford 
University  board  of  trustees  through  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  to  public 
television  station  KQED. 

A  total  of  thirteen  interviews  were  recorded  with  Mrs.  Charles.   The 
first  three  were  taped  in  1974  for  a  study  of  Bay  Area  foundations.   They 
focus  on  her  twenty-five  years  as  board  member  and  president  of  the 
Rosenberg  Foundation  and  appear  in  volume  V  of  that  series,  titled, 
"Development  and  Dynamics  of  Volunteer  Organizations." 

The  second  set  of  ten  recording  sessions  was  made  possible  by  a  group 
of  friends  and  civic  leaders  to  document  other  major  aspects  of  Mrs.  Charles' 
work.   The  present  volume  includes  all  thirteen  interviews. 

The  later  sessions  were  recorded  between  September  19,  1977  and 
March  30,  1978,  in  the  Charles'  home  on  Francisco  Street  in  San  Francisco. 
These  sessions  were  brief,  usually  less  than  an  hour,  because  Mrs.  Charles 
was  pacing  herself  carefully  to  overcome  the  effects  of  the  stroke  she 
suffered  in  1976.  The  illness  had  limited  her  activity,  but  not  her 
enthusiasm  for  discussing  the  workings  of  the  volunteer  community. 

The  transcript  of  the  tapes  was  rough-edited  in  the  Bancroft  Library 
and  reviewed  by  Mrs.  Charles.   She  made  minor  revisions,  clarified  questions 
raised  by  the  editor,  and  wrote  a  few  additional  passages  which  are 
incorporated  in  the  text.  A  modest  person,  Mrs.  Charles  has  not  kept 
photographs  of  herself  and  her  many  activities.  With  the  cooperation  of 
the  San  Francisco  Examiner,  however,  the  good,  characteristic  pose  that 
appears  in  the  frontispiece  was  obtained. 


Gabrielle  Morris 
Interviewer-Editor 


April  1979 

The  Bancroft  Library 

Berkeley 


March  1073 
ix 


Mrs.  Allan  E.  Charles 

850  Francisco  Street 

i>an  Francisco,  California   94109 


Chain, ;an,  Board  of  Directors,  Bay  Arva  Educational  TV  -  KOCD,  San  Francisco 
Vice  President,  Board  of  Trustees,  Stanford  University,  Stanford,  California 
Board  of  Directors,  World  Affairs  Council  of  Nor  thorn  California,  San  Francis 
Presidout,  Rosenberg  foundation,  San  Francisco 

Vice  r.-C'SidciiL,  Board  of  Directors,  California  Theater  Foundation  (ACT) 
Board  of  Directors,  National  Council  on  Alcoholism,  San  Francisco  Council 
Board  of  Directors,  Auxiliary  to  San  Francisco  General  Hospital 
Honorary  Member,  Junior  T,ra;^uc  of  San  Francisco 


Clubs: 

Town  and  Country  Club,  San  Francisco 
Century  Club,  San  Francisco 


Formerly: 

Lecturer  in  Community  Service,  Mills  College  1949-59 

President,  League  of  Women  Voters  of  San  Francisco  1948-50 
Member,  Defense  Advisory  Comrn.  on  Women  in  the  Services, 

Washington,  B.C.  .961-64 

Secretary,  Advisory  Board  of  Health,  San  Francisco  1958-64 

President,  Edgewood  Orphanage  1960-64 

President,  Katherine  Delmar  Burke  School,  San  Francisco  1965-69 

Born:  Caroline  Moore,  Stockton,  California 

Stockton  High  School,  1923;  Stanford  University,  B.A.  Mathematics,  1927. 
Cap  and  Gown  Honor  Society,  Stanford  since  1926 
President,  Chi  Omega  Social  Sorority,  Stanford,  1927. 

Married;   Allan  Earle  Charles,  Stanford  B.A.,  1925;  J.D.,  1927 
(S.F.  Law  Firm  -  Lillick,  Wheat,  Adams  and  Charles) 

Two  daughters:  Jean  (Mrs.  Andrew  D'Annco)  Stanford  B.A.,  1952 

one  daughter,  four  sons,  San  Francisco 

Nini  (Mrs.  Michael  McCone)  Stanford,  1955 
three  sons:  (San  Francisco) 


1.   FAMILY  AND  CHILDHOOD 
[Interview  1:   1  October  1974 ]## 


Stockton  Early  Settlers 


Morris:   We'd  like  to  start  with  the  background  of  your  own  interest  in 

philanthropic  and  civic  activities.  When  did  you  get  started  in  this? 

Charles:   It  certainly  wasn't  a  family  tradition,  "by  any  means,  because  my 

family — as  you  know,  I  was  born  in  Stockton  and  so  were  my  parents. 
And  their  parents  had  come  across  the  plains.  They  arrived  in 
Stockton  in  about  1850. 

Morris:   Did  they?  Right  in  the  beginning  of  California  statehood. 
Charles:  Yes,  and  also  of  Stockton. 

My  mother  and  father  were  extremely  good  people  and  extremely 
fond  of  each  other.  There  were  four  children,  of  whom  I  was  the 
eldest — three  girls  and  finally  a  son. 

I  don't  know  how  my  parents  managed  not  to  make  us  feel 
inadequate  as  persons,  because  they  thought  of  the  boy  so  much.  We 
used  to  hear  it  all  the  time,  you  know,  about  how  they're  going  to 
have  a  boy.   I  had  two  maiden  aunts  on  my  mother's  side — her  name 
was  Yardley — and  they  used  to  talk  all  the  time  about  that  boy  that 
was  going  to  come.  And  yet,  I  don't  think  it  ever  affected  me  or  my 
two  youngest  sisters  with  a  feeling  that  there  was  anything 
inadequate  about  us.  So  something  must  have  been  more  tactful  than 
they  realized  about  that.  I  don't  know  that  we  want  to  go  into  this 
too  much,  except  to  say  that  my  mother  hadn't  even  finished  high 
school.  And  that  was  because  her  mother  was  an  invalid. 

I  don't  know  whether  my  grandmother  was  a  real  invalid,  or 
whether  it  was  Just  bearing  an  those  children.  She  was  still  of 
the  generation  where  you  Just  had  one  child  after  another,  and  she 
lost  two  or  three  children  by  death.   I  think  a  great  many  of  those 
women  retreated  into  a  kind  of  invalidism.   It  must  have  been  to 
protect  themselves. 


////This  symbol  indicates  that  a  tape  or  a  segment  of  a  tape  has  begun 
or  ended.   For  a  guide  to  the  tapes  see  p. 304. 


Morris :   It  must  have  been  hard  on  them. 

Charles:  Yes,  I  think  so.  So  my  mother  vas  the  oldest  living  girl.  I  think 
there  had  "been  another  girl  who  had  died  some  years  before. 

My  mother  was  born  in  1876,  which  always  interested  me  as  a 
significant  American  date,  you  know.  Then  she  left  high  school  and 
stayed  home  to  run  the  household.  She  was  a  great  deal  like  my 
grandfather  in  temperament.  He  was  a  very  dominating,  tough  man. 
I  didn't  know  him  well.  He  was  alive  during  my  early  years,  but  I 
didn't  have  time  to  listen  to  him.  I  mean,  he  would  have  told  us 
all  about  coming  across  the  plains  and  those  early  days  if  anybody 
would  have  listened.  That's  the  way  children  are,  of  course. 

Mother,  as  I  say,  had  stayed  home  from  school  and  had  become 
the  head  of  the  household,  really,  as  far  as  the  domestic  side  of 
it  went,  and  my  grandmother  was  just  a  silent,  little,  hunched  woman 
whom  I  remember  very  distinctly.  She  outlived  my  grandfather  by 
several  years,  but  I  can't  even  remember  hearing  her  put  two  words 
together,  or  talk  at  all. 

My  two  maiden  aunts,  with  whom  she  lived,  were  devoted  to  her, 
and  those  two  aunts  continued  their  education.  It  was  really  my 
Aunt  Emma  who  decided  that  I  should  go  to  Stanford.   I  was  a  very 
bright  child,  and  Aunt  Emma  had  heard  of  this  college,  you  see,  that 
was  Just  starting.  Of  course,  it  was  in  1923  that  I  went  off  to 
college,  and  Stanford  had  started  in  1891.  Aunt  Emma  had  always 
sort  of  hoped  she  could  go  there,  but  it  was  not  within  the  realm 
of  possibility,  because  it  wasn't  the  way  my  grandfather  would  have 
thought . 

He  didn't  think  that  women  needed  an  education? 

I  don't  believe  he  would  have  thought  of  it.  But  the  two  aunts  were 
quite  independent.  My  Aunt  Emma  was  the  more  timid  one  of  the  two, 
and  Bess,  who  was  the  youngest,  was  the  ornery  one,  who  did  as  she 
darned  pleased  anyway.  She  went  to  normal  school.  Remember  that 
word? 

Morris:   I  do.  I've  wondered  why  teacher  training  was  considered  'normal1 
school. 

Charles:  I  doubt  if  'normal'  had  anything  to  do  with  normal  as  we  think  of  it, 
I  don't  know  what  it  means,  but  Bess  did  take  off  and  become  a 
schoolteacher;  she  went  and  taught.  Her  first  teaching  was  in  a 
small  town  near  Stockton.  Banta  was  the  name  of  it — a  little,  tiny 
place.  She  lived  in  a  household  Just  the  way  they  did  in  the  early 
days,  and  ultimately  came  back  into  the  Stockton  school  system. 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Charles :  But  vhat  I  really  wanted  to  say  was  that  the  idea  of  community  work 
was  not  something  that  either  "branch  of  my  family  would  have  ever 
thought  of  at  all. 

My  father  would  never  have  thought  of  being  a  councilman,  or 
whatever  you  have,  in  Stockton.  He  Just  didn't  think  that  way,  and 
neither  did  my  mother,  really.  But  the  thing  that  interests  me, 
looking  back,  and  that  I  don't  really  understand,  is  that  my  mother's 
family  was  very  much  closer  to  us  in  typical  style.  Mother's  two 
sisters,  my  aunts,  and  my  grandmother  were  part  of  our  daily  lives. 
My  father's  sister,  Grace,  lived  in  Stockton;  she  was  married  to  a 
man  named  Frank  Viebrock.  They  had  a  son  and  a  daughter.   I  never 
knew  my  father's  parents.  They  were  not  educated  people.  But  it's 
kind  of  interesting:  they  had  very  high  standards  of  and  respect 
for  education,  which,  of  course,  was  true  of  the  whole  of  America. 
The  feeling  was  that  education  was  the  way  people  were  going  to 
improve  themselves. 

Everybody  knew  everybody  in  Stockton.  Although  my  parents 
didn't  move  in  a  social  world  in  Stockton,  they  were  considered 
solid  citizens  of  the  town. 


Aspirations  and  Attitudes 

Charles:  But  it  was  Aunt  Emma's  inspiration  that  I  should  go  to  Stanford.   I 
had,  you  know,  a  straight  A  record  in  high  school. 

Morris:   And  you  majored  in  math? 

Charles:  Math,  yes. 

Morris:   That's  pretty  remarkable. 

Charles:  Not  really,  because  I'm  convinced  that  math  is  Just  a  gift.  You 

look  at  things  mathematically,  you  understand  how  numbers  relate  to 
each  other,  and  so  I  never  thought  anything  very  much  of  being  able 
to  do  mathematics,  because  I  Just  knew  how  to  do  it. 

Morris :   Were  there  many  women  in  the  advanced  math  classes? 

Charles:  There  were  two  other  women;  this  is  high  school  now,  I'm  talking 

about — two  other  girls  who  were  both  good  at  mathematics,  and  with 
both  of  them,  too,  it  was  a  natural  thing  that  they  knew.  One  of 
them  got  into  Stanford  at  the  same  time  I  did.  I  don't  know  where 
she  is  now;  I  haven't  seen  or  even  heard  of  her  for  years.  The  other 
girl  came  from  a  very  social  family,  a  very  beautiful  girl,  but  there 


Charles:  was  an  element  of  irresponsibility  in  her  nature ,  and  I  don't  knov 
vhere  she  went  to  college.  She  wasn't  particularly  interested  in 
going  to  Stanford.  She  might  have  gone  down  to  UC.  I  really  don't 
remember  what  happened  to  her,  either. 

I  remember  an  incident  in  a  chemistry  class,  where  I  had  a  poor 
young  professor — I  said  'poor'  in  the  sense  of  pathetic;  I  used  to 
feel  sorry  for  my  teachers  and  professors  if  they  didn't  know  how  to 
deal  with  women.  A  lot  of  them  didn't  you  know.  You  Just  had  the 
feeling  they  were  completely  at  sea  in  dealing  with  a  woman  student, 
and  in  this  class  he  had  us  all  go  to  the  blackboard  and  gave  us  a 
chemistry  problem,  which  was  an  equation,  and  which  I  Just  did.  I 
mean,  it  was,  to  me,  very  simple,  and  I  finished  it,  and  I  turned  my 
back  to  the  board. 

This  young  man  said:  Miss  Moore,  if  you  would  face  the  board 
and  do  your  problem,  instead  of  trying  to  see  what  the  other  people 
have  done,  it  would  be  much  better. 

And  I  stepped  aside,  and  my  eyes  filled  with  tears,  of  course, 
and  I  said:  But  my  problem  is  done. 

He  nearly  died.  Really,  you  know,  I  couldn't  get  angry  at  him, 
because  I  realized  that  he  Just  had  no  idea  how  to  treat  a  bright 
woman  student — maybe  he  knew  better  how  to  treat  a  young  man.  I 
think  he  might  have.  But  he  saw  that  I  had  done  it,  and  it  was  done 
correctly,  and  he  was  really  lost.  He  didn't  know  what  to  do. 

In  any  case,  I  did  apply  to  Stanford,  and  I  can  remember  Just 
praying  that  if  I  could  get  into  Stanford,  I  would  never  ask  for 
anything  else  again.  That  would  be,  you  know,  the  acme  of  everything 
And  so  I  was  admitted  and— • 

Morris:   It  must  have  been  a  great  satisfaction. 

Charles:  College  made  a  great  change  in  my  life,  of  course.  It  isn't  so 

necessary  now,  but  in  those  days  it  was  particularly  important  for 
a  girl  like  me  from  a  very  limited  experience  and  a  really  bourgeois 
family. 

My  father  loved  to  read,  and  read  all  the  time,  but  he  was 
undiscriminating  in  his  reading.  My  reading  is  not  unlike  that, 
because  I  am  a  person  who  Just  has  to  read  all  the  time.  There's 
certain  reading  I  have  to  do,  and  I  always  do,  and  then  there's 
some  reading  I  Just  do  because  I  read  rapidly.  That  all  came,  I'm 
sure,  from  my  father.  So  I  don't  need  any  speed-reading  courses. 
I  learned  that  myself,  and  perhaps  from  observing  him. 

My  mother  adored  my  father,  but  I  would  get  scolded,  you  know: 
Caroline  Moore,  are  you  reading? 


Charles:  It  vas  the  worst  thing  I  could  do.  Then,  vhen  I  got  older  and  got 
sassy,  I'd  say:  Well,  you  don't  say  anything  when  Dad  reads.  You 
just  talk  to  me  like  that. 

I  mean,  immediately  [laughs]  we  got  going  thoroughly.  I  am  very 
grateful  that  she  was  a  tough-minded  lady,  "because  she  didn't  have 
the  education  to  cope  with  children,  but  she  had  the  spirit  and  the 
sense  of  decency,  and  it  was  a  very  good  thing  because  I  was  a 
terribly  strong-minded  girl. 

None  of  my  sisters  were  as  strong  and  tough-minded  as  I  was, 
but  all  of  us  were  part  of  the  next  generation.  We  were  going  to 
break  away,  you  know.  But  my  sister  Maureen — oh,  I  treated  her  so 
terribly.   She  was  my  next  sister,  and  she  was  only  a  year  and  a  half 
younger.  The  family  would  never  have  understood  any  of  that  as  the 
kind  of  sibling  rivalry  that  became  later  Just  a  topic  of  common 
conversation,  you  know.  My  mother  thought  I  was  the  meanest  person 
she  ever  knew.  I'd  as  soon  knock  Maureen  down  as  look  at  her,  because 
I  didn't  want  to  be  followed  around  everywhere;  I  was  trailed  every 
where,  even  when  I  got  a  little  older.  Maureen  Just  wanted  to  do 
everything  I  did.  That's  perfectly  natural,  but  I  didn't  wish  to  be 
accompanied  by  somebody  every  place  I  went. 

Morris:   That's  also  perfectly  natural. 

Charles:  Oh,  perfectly.  But  my  father  never  entered  these  rows.  He  was  a 
darling  man,  and  never  allowed  himself  to  get  mixed  up  in  a  great 
deal  of  the  battling  that  went  on  in  my  family,  because  my  mother  and 
my  aunts  were  at  swords'  points  most  of  the  time — for  no  particular 
reason,  except  as  an  exercise.   I've  always  felt  (and  when  I  look 
back  at  it,  I  made  up  my  mind  then,  watching  this)  that  I  would  never 
allow  myself  or  anybody  else  to  live  in  that  kind  of  climate ,  because 
most  of  the  fights  were  completely  uncalled  for — Just  battles  over 
who  said  what,  or  anything.  I  think  it  was  because  there  wasn't 
enough  to  do  in  a  small  town  like  Stockton. 

Even  though  there  was  nothing  to  do,  nobody  in  my  family  got 
involved  in  good  works  in  the  sense  that  women  use  their  energies 
for  now,  and  did  when  I  first  came  to  San  Francisco,  too.  I  mean, 
it  was  moving  to  the  city  that  got  me  started. 


2.   STUDENT  YEAES  AT  STANFORD 


Freshman  Traumas 


Morris: 
Charles : 


When  you  got  to  Stanford,  did  this  cause  you  to  think  about  yourself 
and  vhat  kind  of  goals  you  might  have  as  an  individual? 

I  don't  know,  because  I  didn't  know  myself  at  that  point,  really. 
I  didn't  know  what  I  was.  I  knew  I  was  very  bright  and  that  I  had 
gotten  into  Stanford,  which  was  quite  an  accomplishment.  When  I 
walked  into  the  dean  of  women's  office  and  said  I  was  Caroline  Moore, 
Miss  Yost,  who  was  the  dean  of  women,  said:  Come  girls.  Here's 
Caroline  Moore.  We've  all  got  to  have  a  look  at  her. 

And  I  turned  bright  red,  because  I  blush  very  easily.      It  turned 
out  that  my  Methodist  minister  had  written  that  I  was  as  pure  as  the 
driven  snow,  and  they  wanted  to  see  somebody  like  that.     Now,   I  was 
unsophisticated,   so  that  I  didn't  know  how  funny  that  was.      I  knew 
later  that  it  was  awfully  funny,  but  at  that  time,   I  wasn't  quite 
sure  how  to  take  this  attention.     I  really  didn't  know  enough  about 
myself.      It  took  me  many  years  to  find  what  I  could  do  and  couldn't 
do  and  wanted  to  do.     I  didn't  decide  that  in  college,  by  any  means. 

But  at  Stanford  I  had  several  fortunate  aspects  of  preparation 
for  what  was  going  to  happen.     For  instance,  they  had  sororities 
there,  and  I  had  no  credentials.     Nobody  wrote  a  letter  to  a 
sorority  and  asked  that  they  look  me  up,  because  I  just  didn't  know 
people  in  Stockton  who  did  that  sort  of  thing. 

Sororities  never  had  a  strong  hold  at  Stanford  and,  of  course, 
as  you  know,  they're  eliminated  now.     Rushing  took  a  whole  year. 
They  went  through  several  experiments  at  Stanford  about  how  best  to 
deal  with  sororities.     I  should  have  started  with  this:     there  were 
only  five  hundred  vonen  at  Stanford.     Mrs.   Stanford  had  announced 
right  at  the  opening  that   she  didn't  really  want  women  at  Stanford. 
Then,   later,   she  Just   simply  announced  as  an  edict,  which  she  did 


Charles:   frequently — and  vhich  the  then  board  of  trustees  accepted — that  there 
would  be  no  more  than  five  hundred  women  at  Stanford. 

By  the  time  I  got  to  Stanford  in  1923,  there  must  have  "been  about 
two  thousand  men,  maybe,  and  five  hundred  women.  So  it  was  a 
marvelous  experience  for  anybody,  even  as  green  a  freshman  as  I  was. 
I  mean,  you  just  had  all  the  attention  you  could  possibly  handle. 

Morris:   What  fun! 

Charles:  Well,  it  was;  except,  as  I  say,  I  was  just  very  unsophisticated.   I 
just  didn't  have  what  my  own  children  would  have,  coming  from  a  city 
as  they  did,  going  to  Stanford,  too;  although  I  am  glad  to  say  that 
both  my  daughters  are  quite  simple  and  realistic  in  their  outlook  on 
life.  They  don't  care  much  about  social  life,  and  they're  both — I'm 
a  little  bit  prejudiced  about  them,  I  think. 

Morris:   Well,  their  mother  should  be. 

Charles:   [Laughs]   In  any  case,  I  was  not  offended  when  I  wasn't  heavily 

rushed  by  the  Kappas  and  the  Pi  Phis  and  the  sororities  that  were 
generally  considered  the  most  important.  Finally,  somebody  invited 
me  to  come  to  the  Chi  Omegas,  and  I  went,  and  that  was  nice;  and  they 
asked  me  to  Join,  and  that  was  nice.   I  was  glad  to  have  a  chance  to 
Join — I  had  watched  in  Roble  Hall  the  terrible,  traumatic  experiences 
of  some  of  the  girls,  who  had  come  down  with  instructions  from  their 
mothers  that  they  were  to  Join  the  Kappas  or  Pi  Phis,  or  else.  And 
it  was  Just  a  terrible  tragedy. 

I  really  have  never  forgotten  about  it ,  and  I  was  very  much  in 
favor  of  the  sororities  being  removed  when  the  time  finally  came 
that  they  were.   It  seemed  to  me  that  it  was  hard  enough  to  get  into 
Stanford,  without  having  the  feeling  that  you  went  through  another 
test,  whose  values  you  didn't  understand,  because  you  didn't  know 
why  you  would  be  chosen.   I  had  no  idea  why,  and  I  don't  know  yet 
why,  the  Chi  Omegas  were  nice  enough  to  invite  me  to  Join,  because 
I  was  still  really  a  very  unsophisticated  kind  of  a  young  woman. 

During  the  first  two  years  I  continued  to  be  a  very  good  student 
and  got  lower  division  honors,  as  they  called  it,  and  then  went  into 
math  as  my  major,  because  in  those  years  that's  the  way  you  did. 
Your  first  two  years  were  what  they  called  'lower  division,'  which 
was  general  courses,  and  then  you  went  into  your  major. 


8 


Allan  Charles 


Charles:  By  that  time,  I  had  met  Allan  Charles.  I  met  him  -when  I  was  a 
sophomore . 

Morris:   Did  you? 

Charles:  He  vas  in  my  Italian  class.  It's  hard  to  explain  why  either  one  of 
us  would  show  up  in  an  Italian  class,  "but  I  was — 

Morris:   Were  languages  then  the  trauma  that  they  are  to  many  students  in  the 
seventies? 

Charles:  I  don't  know  exactly  what  you  mean. 

Morris:   Many  students  nowadays  have  great  difficulty  with  foreign  languages, 
and  the  expectations  do  not  seem  to  be  as  high  as  they  were  a 
generation  ago. 

Charles:  Well,  we  had,  neither  Al  nor  I— well,  I'm  not  speaking  for  him  now; 
I  didn't  even  know  him — but  neither  one  of  us  had  any  aspirations  as 
to  language,  though  I  minored  in  French,  because  my  mother  had  been 
very  anxious  about  that.  She  thought  that  any  lady-like  person  should 
speak  French. 

Well,  we  never  had  a  teacher  in  all  my  years  at  Stanford  who 
spoke  French,  except  Professor  Anderson  in  the  last  year.  Those 
teachers  at  Stanford  in  those  days  were  not  real  French  people.  They 
were  exactly  the  same  kind  of  a  teacher  I'd  had  in  high  school,  who'd 
learned  French  somewhere  and  spoke,  I  imagine,  with  a  terrible  accent. 
I  would  say  very  little  French  was  taught  or  learned  at  any  point.  We 
had,  I  think  probably,  a  very  poor  language  department  at  Stanford — 
perhaps  elsewhere,  too. 

Morris:   Was  Allan  Charles  involved  in  campus  affairs? 

Charles:  No.  Al  was  a  senior,  and  I  was  a  sophomore.   He  was  about  to  go  into 
law.  At  Stanford,  you  took  your  four-year  undergraduate  and  then  two 
years  of  lav  to  get  a  degree.  Stanford  happened  to  give  a  degree  in 
two  years,  whereas  at  Harvard  it  was  three  years. 

The  reason  I  mention  that  is  because  Al  won  a  scholarship  to 
Harvard,  and  went  off  to  Harvard  for  a  year;  but  his  mother  was  a 
widow,  and  they  were  really  not  well-off  as  far  as  money  was  concerned, 
He  felt  that  he  must  come  back  to  Stanford  for  his  last  year ,  when  he 
could  get  his  J.D.,  which  was  what  he  did.  So  he  did  not  stay  and 
graduate  from  Harvard  Law  School,  in  order  to  get  one  year  ahead  so 
he  could  go  to  work,  which  was  what  he  wanted  to  do,  and  get  off  of 
his  mother's  financial  obligations.  So  that's  what  he  did. 


Charles:   I  think  Italian  was  Just — I  don't  knov.   I  must  ask  Al  sometime  why. 
I  don't  know  exactly  why  he  went  into  that  Italian  class.  I  went 
into  it  to  fill  in  three  units.  I  was  taking  some  French,  of  course, 
and  math — always  plenty  of  math — and  maybe  some  chemistry.  I  don't 
remember  what  I  was  taking.  Well,  we  had  all  these  required  things. 
You  had  very  little  extra  units  to  fill. 

But  I  elected  to  take  Italian,  and  that  class  started  out, 
apparently,  with  the  belief  that  it  was  going  to  be  what  they  called 
a  'pipe'  course  in  those  days,  and  so  it  was  filled  with  football 
players.  Madame  Staufe  was  the  professor.  She  was  a  huge  woman  who 
wore  a  cape,  and  she  came  dramatically  into  the  class.  And  the  first 
thing  she  called  the  roll,  and  she  called:  Mr.  Biagini;  Mr.  Prinsinzano 
And  then  she  got  to  the  football  players:  Mr.  Nee-vers  (Ernie  Nevers 
was  the  big  football  player  of  that  year);  and  it  was  a  whole  series, 
practically  the  whole  football  team.  Well,  they  disappeared  in  two 
days,  because  Madame  Staufe  made  it  very  clear  that  this  was  going  to 
be  no  easy  course. 

Morris:   She  was  going  to  teach  Italian. 

Charles:   Yes.  And  they  weren't  about  to  study  Italian.  They'd  heard  you 

could  get  through  without,  and  they  all  disappeared.  You  always  had 
the  first  week  or  two,  you  know,  to  withdraw  from  a  class. 

So  Mr.  Charles  (Mr.  Char-les)  and  Miss  Moore  were  about  the 
only  American  names,  so  to  speak,  in  the  class,  you  see. 

After  about  a  week  in  the  class,  one  of  the  older  girls  in  my 
sorority  said  to  me:  There's  a  man  in  your  class  who  wants  to  take 
you  out  to  a  dance,  and  I  advise  you  to  go. 

I  didn't  like  the  girl  who  told  me  that  much — and  she  said: 
His  name  is  Allan  Charles,  and  he's  a  very  distinguished  person 
around  here.  He's  got  a  block  S,  he's  a  track  man,  and  he's  on  the 
men's  council — and  I  don't  know  what  all. 

I  said  okay,  I  would  go.  The  dance  was  at  the  Phi  Psi  house, 
and  it  was  a  gathering  of  a  very  distinguished  group  of  men  who  were 
in  an  honor  fraternity  of  some  kind,  you  see. 

Well,  it  was  up  the  hill.  Al  came  over  for  me  and  said:  I 
could  have  gotten  a  ride  for  us  up  the  hill,  but  I  thought  we'd 
rather  walk. 

I  looked  at  my  high-heeled  shoes,  which  we  were  wearing  in 
those  days,  and  I  thought:  This  is  it.  I'll  go  out  tonight,  but 
I'll  never  go  out  with  a  man  like  this  again  who  has  no  more  sense. 


10 


Charles :  So  we  walked ,  and  the  roads  were  gravel ,  and  it  was  a  very  uncomfortable 
walk ,  and  I  tho ught  anybody  should  have  known  better  than  that .  In 
any  case,  [laughs]  we  had  some  ups  and  downs  and  quarrels  and  one 
thing  or  another,  but  eventually  we  were  married  a  year  after  I 
graduated.  We  were  married  in  1928. 


Organizational  Ability  and  Awards 


Charles:  As  I  got  to  be  a  senior,  I  realized  that  I  had  some  organizational 
abilities.  I  didn't  know  that  about  myself.  I  also  realized — I 
don't  know  that  I  enunciated  this,  but  I  realized  that  I  was  really 
interested  in  people,  with  whom  I  had  been  very  shy  always  in  my 
earlier  life.  I  never  felt  secure,  partly,  I  think,  because  of  my 
mother's  timidity. 

My  mother  really  had  no  friends.  She  didn't  know  how  to  make 
friends,  because  her  dominant  nature  Just  overcame — she  had  to 
dominate  friends  just  the  way  she  did  her  family  and  children.  And 
it  really  made  her — the  only  reason  she  didn't  have  a  lonely  life 
was  because  we  were  related  to  half  the  town.  So  she  had  the  security 
that  these  were  her  cousins,  but  she  had  no  life  such  as  we  all  live 
here,  with  friends  to  dinner;  the  only  people  we  ever  had  to  dinner 
were  cousins  and  relatives  and  that  sort  of  thing.  I  may  have 
adopted  some  of  that ,  but  in  college  I  began  to  see  that  I  could  get 
some  things  done. 

I  was  elected  president  of  the  sorority,  and  then  I  was  elected 
to  Cap  and  Gown,  which  is  the  women's  honor  society,  like  Mortarboard. 
I  could  not  understand  that.  I  didn't  think  that  I  deserved  that. 
I  could  not  think  what  I'd  done  that  made  it  necessary  to  elect  me 
to  that,  because  they  only  elected  ten  women  a  year.  I  still  don't 
know,  but  I  must  have  done  something  right  there. 

Anyway ,  that  was  nice . 
Morris:   Did  that  give  you  a  feeling  of  confidence? 

Charles:  Well,  somewhat.  But  I  think  I  have  to  say  for  myself  that  I  have 

never  gone  around  expecting  honors.  I  never  have;  I've  been  totally 
surprised.  When  I  was  invited  on  the  board  of  trustees  of  Stanford, 
I  absolutely  couldn't  believe  it.  When  I  was  invited  on  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation,  I  couldn't  understand  it.  I  think  lots  of  people  eat 
their  hearts  out  because  they  see  something  they  want  and  don't  know 
how  to  get  it.  I  have  never  conceived  of  myself  that  way. 


11 


Charles:  Nfy  upbringing  made  me  a  responsible  person.  When  I  said  I  was  going 
to  do  something,  I've  always  done  it  and  tried  to  do  it  better  than 
anybody  else  had  ever  done  it,  just  because  I  think  that's  the  way 
you  ought  to  do  anything.  I  remember  learning  early  in  my  community 
life  that  you  never  have  a  second  chance.  If  you  were  putting  on  a 
party,  or  when  I  was  president  of  the  League  of  Women  Voters,  you  had 
to  do  your  best  with  whatever  the  event  was ;  because  when  the  event 
was  over,  that  was  all.  It  was  done.  And  that  made  a  very  great 
impression  on  me  very  early  in  my  community  life.  So  that  I  always 
felt  that  whatever  I  did,  I  would  throw  my  whole  self  into  it  for  the 
time,  because  I  wouldn't  have  a  chance  to  change  it  if  I  didn't  throw 
in  my  whole  self. 

I  never  wanted  to  say:  Well,  if  I'd  really  tried,  I  could  have 
done  that.  I  didn't  want  to  fool  myself  that  way.  So  that  I've  been 
fortunate  in  not  expecting  anything  as  far  as  honors  or  general 
community  respect  are  concerned. 

Morris:   It's  been  more  the  satisfaction  of  doing  the  job  as  best  you  can — 

Charles:  Of  doing  it.  Yes.  And  then  I'm  pleased  if  I'm  honored.  That's  nice, 
although  it  embarrasses  me  a  little  bit.   I  don't  like  it  as  much. 
I  don't  feel  as  comfortable  about  it  as  I  do  about  doing  the  job. 

I  learned  early,  too,  that  sometimes  you  don't  get  honored  for 
the  things  you  did  do.  You'll  get  honored  for  something  else,  and 
something  you  did  that  you  just  killed  yourself  for,  nobody  even 
knows  about  it.  And  that  evens  itself  up,  too.  So  that  you  don't 
go  around  regretting  that  you  didn't  get  honored  for  thus  and  so, 
because  you  already  got  honored  for  thus  and  something  else  that  you 
didn't  really  deserve.   [Laughs]  So  I  don't  have  any  regrets  about 
that  sort  of  thing. 


12 


3.   BEGINNING  A  COMMUNITY  CAREER: 
VOTERS,  1936-1950 


SAN  FRANCISCO  LEAGUE  OF  WOMEN 


Pros  and  Cons  of  Labor  Issues 


Morris:   Was  the  League  of  Women  Voters  the  first  organization  that  you  got 
deeply  involved  in? 

Charles:  Well,  not  really.  It  was  the  one  that  brought  me  out  of  my  domesticity 
I'd  say.  It  would  have  been  about  1935,  because  I  was  married  in  '28 
and  I  didn't  feel  comfortable  about  getting  out  of  my  house  until  both 
my  children  were  in  school. 

We  didn't  really  have  money  enough  for  me  to  do  much,  because  Al 
started  practice  in  his  law  firm  in  1929,  and  the  bottom  fell  out  of 
everything.  It  really  didn't  hurt  us  any,  because  we  didn't  have 
anything.  It's  a  marvelous  thing.  If  you  have  nothing  to  lose,  you 
have  no  regrets.  We  didn't  have  anything.  Al  was  earning  seventy- 
five  dollars  a  month  in  the  law  office.  Now,  you  know,  they  pay 
everybody  a  thousand  a  month,  no  matter  what  they're  doing,  even  the 
office  boy  [laughs]. 

Well,  even  with  inflation,  we  didn't  get  anything  like  that.  We 
started  with  seventy-five  and  maybe  got  up  to  a  hundred.  Absolutely 
amazing.  And,  of  course,  we  didn't  suffer,  because  both  our  families 
were  well  able  to  help  us  equip  our  little  apartment  in  San  Francisco 
with  anything  we  really  needed — well ,  we  lived  in  an  extremely  modest 
way.  Both  Al  and  I  have  a  lot  of  respect  for  living  within  your 
means;  we  try  very  hard  to  do  that.  Neither  of  us  places  great  value 
on  material  things.  We  like  things  to  be  nice  if  we  can  afford  them, 
but  I  don't  have  to — I  can  remember  Al's  mother  saying  that  she  never 
saw  another  young  woman  who  could  walk  right  by  all  the  shops  without 
even  stopping  to  look.  At  that  time  I  didn't  have  any  money  to  buy 
any  clothes,  so  why  should  I  torture  myself  and  so  on? 

Now,  where  was  I? 


13 

Morris:   You  said  that  the  League  vas  the  first  organization  that  you  had 
been — 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.  I  had  a  friend  from  college  days — she'd  been  a  sorority 

sister  of  mine,  then  was  practicing  as  a  woman  doctor  in  San  Francisco, 
and  her  husband  was  a  lawyer  for  the  Longshoremen's  Union  and  others 
of  the  left  wing. 

Morris:   They  were  Just  getting  warmed  up,  too. 

Charles:  Well,  they  were  Just  beginning  those  strikes,  you  see.  That's  when 
they  had  those  terrible  strikes  in  San  Francisco,  very  bloody  water 
front  strikes,  and  my  husband's  firm  was  in  admiralty  law,  on  the 
other  side  of  everything.  They  represented  all  the  shipping  companies 
and  all  of  that . 


I  had  never  really  thought  about  my  politics,  or  what  my  attitudes 
were.  I  just  accepted  being  a  middle-class,  probably  Republican, 
person  who  just  took  things  as  they  were;  but  Frances,  my  friend, 
said  to  me:  Look,  Caroline,  you've  got  to  come  into  the  League  of 
Women  Voters  because  I  need  someone  to  argue  against  me. 

She  was  in  sympathy,  you  see,  with  the  strikers,  and  she  said: 
There  aren't  enough  conservatives  in  the  League,  and  they  need  people 
who  are  going  to  argue  on  the  other  side. 

At  that  time  I  had  lots  of  arguments  coming  from  Al,  who  is  much 
more  conservative  than  I  am  and  has  remained  so,  though  he's  been 
marvelous  to  me  in  never  striving  to  get  me  to  accept  his  opinions . 
Oh,  every  once  in  a  while,  he'll  get  himself  in  a  very  irritable 
state  when  I'm  on  the  other  side,  but  mostly  I've  been  quite  amazed 
at  his  ability  to  let  me  follow  my  own  head. 

The  thing  I  really  learned  from  that  experience  was  what  the 
arguments  were  on  the  other  side,  which  I  didn't  know — didn't  know 
anything  about  them.  That  was  Harry  Bridges,  you  see,  who  was  the 
longshoremen's  leader,  and  those  people.  So  it  must  have  been  between 
'35  and  '1+0. 

Morris:   I  think  the  general  strike  was  in  193^. 

Charles:  Well,  then  I  must  have  known  a  little  bit  at  that  point,  although  I 
didn't,  really. 

The  first  thing  I  really  got  into  was  the  Campfire  Girls. 
Somebody  had  persuaded  me  to  get  on  the  board  of  the  Campfire  Girls . 

Morris :   As  a  Bluebird  leader  for  your  daughters? 


14 


Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles: 


No.  And  then,  somebody  was  working  on  me  to  "be  a  Girl  Scout  leader, 
and  I  did  a  little  Girl  Scout  leading,  "but  that  wasn't  my  dish  of  tea. 
I  really  didn't  enjoy  it  very  much. 

I  worked  in  the  League  of  Women  Voters,  you  see,  a  long  time 
before  I  was  elected  president.  I  was  elected  president  in  'U8,  and 
I  was  president  from  '1*8  to  '50.  I  have  always  said,  and  I  firmly 
believe,  that  the  greatest  thing  that  happened  to  me — and,  I  think, 
that  could  happen  to  any  young  person — was  the  opportunity  to  work 
in  the  League.  You  learn  a  lot  about  the  realities  of  life;  I  have 
great  respect  for  the  San  Francisco  League . 

I'm  not  at  all  sure  that  they  were  as  far  off  to  the  left  as 
Frances  thought  they  were.  I  suspect  the  group  in  which  she  was 
working,  that  particular  group,  was  probably  composed  of  people  whose 
natural  sympathy  was  with  the  striker,  because  I  always  found  the 
League  was  remarkably  fair  in  presenting  all  sides.  I  certainly 
learned  how  to  be  fair. 

I've  always  had  pleasure  in  my  community  work  because  I've 
always  had  an  instinct  about  being  able  to  do  what  I  do,  and  being 


able  to  watch  what  I  do  all  the  time, 
seeing  the  situation  from  the  side. 

That's  pretty  unusual,  isn't  it? 


Not  only  am  I  acting ,  but  I  'm 


I  think  it  is  unusual.  I  didn't  know  that  it  was  unusual,  but  one 
time  I  mentioned  about  my  memories  of  my  childhood  being  so — composed 
of  that  dual  feeling  of  being  in  it,  and  yet  observing  how  it  was. 
And  somebody  said  to  me  that  that  isn't — I  thought  that  was  common, 
and  apparently  it  wasn't. 

When  I  was  asked  to  teach  at  Mills  College,  as  I  did  for  ten 
years,  Mrs.  McLaughlin  said  to  me:  I  told  them  that  you  could  do 
that,  because  you  have  the  ability  not  only  to  do  things,  but  to  see 
what  you  are  doing. 

I  was  pleased  that  she  thought  it  was  so.  It  makes  things  much 
more  interesting  to  me  to  see  what  the  situation  is ,  and  to  see  how 
each  thing  affects  a  total  situation.  I  think  it's  been  valuable  to 
me  in  the  things  that  I  have  done. 


15 


Emma  Mclaughlin 


Charles:  I  met  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  in  a  curious  vay.  We  had  moved  several  times, 
and  we  ended  up,  vhen  the  children  were  about  five  and  seven  years 
old,  in  a  flat  on  Union  Street  that  happened  to  be  across  the  street 
from  Mrs.  McLaughlin 's  grandchildren. 

Morris:   Were  they  the  same  ages  as  your  children? 

Charles:  Yes.  And  so  I  became  very  well  acquainted  with  Jean  Doolittle,  who 
was  Mrs.  Mclaughlin's  only  daughter.  And  in  the  meantime — as  I  said 
in  my  introduction  to  -her  memoir* — she  and  my  husband  became  acquainted 
because  Ray  Lyman  Wilbur  had  asked  Al  to  be  on  the  board  of  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Relations.  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  was  extremely  active, 
you  see,  in  that  group.  So  he  knew  her  well,  and  he  would  come  home 
and  say  to  me:  This  woman  is  remarkable. 

She  would  also  turn  up  across  the  street,  visiting  her  daughter, 
you  see.  So  we  got  acquainted.  Then  I  was  beginning  to  do  some  work 
in  the  League  of  Women  Voters,  and  she  was  staunch,  you  know,  just  a 
pillar  of  the  League,  and  so  our  acquaintance  developed  that  way. 

Morris:   Were  there  other  women  of  your  age  that  she  befriended,  as  she  did 
you? 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.  She  befriended  a  great  many  women  of  my  contemporaries. 

People  adored  Mrs.  McLaughlin;  she  had  a  retinue  of  people  who  just 
adored  her.  And  they  should,  you  know.  She  was  tremendously  good. 
She  was  always  interested  in  you.  When  she  talked  to  you,  you  never 
had  that  feeling  she  was  wandering  off  mentally,  thinking  about 
something  else.  She  was  interested  in  your  problems.  When  she  saw 
you,  she  remembered  the  thing  you'd  said  last  time,  or  what  the  last 
thing  was  that  you  were  concerned  with.  I  think  all  the  young  women 
around  her  were  anxious  to  be  the  primary  one  that  she  was  really 
interested  in. 


I  had  no  idea  that  I  was  the  primary  one.   I  think  I  was 
later  people  said  to  me — I  remember  Dorothy  Rogers  said:  I 
Mrs.  McLaughlin  felt  about  me  the  way  she  feels  about  you. 


,  because 

wish 


I  was  absolutely  amazed  about  that.   I've  always  been  independent, 
so  that  Mrs.  McLaughlin 's  and  my  conversations  were  really  quite 


*Emma  Moffat  McLaughlin.  A  Life  in  Community  Service.  Regional  Oral 
History  Office,  1970. 


16 


Charles:  interesting.  She'd  call  me  up  at  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning — that 

was  vhen  she  always  made  her  phone  calls.  I've  gotten  into  that  habit 
myself;  otherwise  you  never  get  out  of  the  house,  if  you  spend  all 
morning  on  the  phone  and  you  have  things  to  do.  But  she'd  say  to  me: 
Now,  Caroline,  I  am  very  worried  about — something  the  League  was  about 
to  undertake,  or  whatever  it  might  be. 

And  I  would  say:  Well,  now,  Mrs.  Mclaughlin,  I  think  that  there1! 
something  that  you  may  not  know  about  this. 

So  then  I  would  explain,  and  she  would  say  suddenly:  I'm  dead 
wrong.  Okay.  Let's  go  on  to  the  next  thing. 

I  mean,  she  really  was  a  marvelous  person. 

And  then  her  daughter  Jean  and  I  were  good  friends ,  because  Jean 
had  no  especial  interest  in  these  community  things;  except  I  shouldn't 
perhaps,  make  that  so  definite,  because  Jean  is  such  a  good  person, 
but  she  had  a  very  busy  home  life.  She  had  three  children,  but  her 
husband  was  much  more  demanding  than  Al ,  in  that  he  liked  to  go  off 
hunting,  or  he'd  go  up — he  wanted  Jean  to  go  with  him,  you  see,  on 
these  things.  So  she  really  couldn't  settle  down  to  doing  the  kinds 
of  things  those  of  us  were  whose  husbands  were  fully  occupied  down 
town  or  somewhere  else  during  the  day. 

Jean  and  I  are  exactly  the  same  age,  too;  we  were  both  born  in 
October  of  1905.  So  we  felt  kind  of  an  affinity.  Mrs.  McLaughlin 
adored  her  daughter  and  her  grandchildren,  but  Jean's  interests  were 
so  different  from  her  mother's,  you  see,  that  if  she  wanted  to  talk 
about  what  was  going  on  in  the  community  or  anything  else,  she  would 
call  me  or  some  of  her  other  close  friends.  I  think  we  suited  each 
other  somehow,  you  know.  She  liked  my  independence,  because  I  never 
tried  to  please  her.  I  just  tried  to  do  what  I  thought  was  right, 
and  we  didn't  ever  have  any  differences  because  she  respected  that, 
too — that  need  of  doing  your  own  thinking  and  doing  what  you  could. 

Of  course,  she  was  Just  a  tremendous  example  to  all  of  us  young 
people ,  of  courage  and  straight  thinking  and  dignity  and  Just  a  whole 
lot  of  qualities  that  we  all  really  wanted  to  have.  She  always 
dressed  well  and  took  great  care  of  her  appearance,  so  that  no  matter 
how  old  she  got,  she  always  looked  like  somebody,  you  know. 

Morris:   Very  distinguished? 
Charles:  Oh,  yes,  Very  much  so. 

Morris:  Did  she  ever  tell  you,  or  do  you  have  any  theories,  about  how  she 
managed  to  do  the  things  she  did?  I  know  of  her  only  through  her 
memoir,  and  how  she  kept  up  with  all  those  organizations — 


17 


Charles:  Because  she  had  money.  Her  household  was  completely  run  and  staffed. 

She  had  no  husband.  Nobody  could  place  any  demands  on  her  but  herself, 
but  she  conceived  what  she  should  do  for  her  grandchildren  and  her 
daughter. 

Her  domestic  situation,  you  see,  was  completely  taken  care  of  by 
her  sister.  She  lived  with  her  sister,  Henrietta  Moffat ,  and 
Henrietta's  province  was  the  house  and  the  hiring  of  the  cooks  and 
the  maids.  They  always  had  a  couple  of  maids  and  a  Chinese  cook.  So 
that  was  one  reason  why  she  was  completely  free  to  do — and  she  used 
to  have  a  driver  for  her  car.  She  had  really  started  that  right  out 
of  college,  I  think.  And, of  course,  her  husband  died  when  she  was 
very  young. 

Morris:   They  were  only  married  a  short  time? 

Charles:  Yes,  a  very  short  time.  Her  money  came  from  the  family. 

Morris:   Her  family? 

Charles:  Yes.  Her  family.  When  she  got  older,  she  worried  about  money,  and 
I  used  to  talk  to  her  very  severely. 

I  would  say:  Mrs.  Mclaughlin,  you  really  must  not  be  driving 
your  car — because  I  would  have  glimpsed  her  driving  down  the  middle 
of  the  street,  talking,  paying  no  attention.  And  she  would  say:  Yes, 
but  then  I'll  just  have  to  give  up  the  car. 

Then  I  said:  But  where's  your  driver?  You  always  had  a  driver. 
She  said:  Well,  now,  Caroline,  I  really  can't  afford  that. 
I  said:  Will  you  please  tell  me  what  you're  talking  about? 

And  she  said:  Well,  I  want  to  be  able  to  leave  my  family 
something. 

I  told  her  it  wasn't  necessary.  Her  daughter's  husband  was  an 
extremely  successful  man.  There  was  no  problem  about  money  anywhere 
in  that  family.  But  she  did  as  many  older  people  do,  and  began  to 
get  conservative  and  keep  herself  a  little  bit  tighter.  But  she 
never  was  an  extravagant  person.  She  Just  lived  comfortably  and  was 
able  to  do  the  things  she  wanted  to  do,  like  going  to  school  every 
summer. 


18 


Organizational  Frustration  ## 


Morris:   What  vere  the  primary  concerns  of  the  League  that  you  were  involved 
in? 

Charles:  I  have  to  say  that  I  think,  in  looking  "back  on  it,  that  my  interest — 
I'm  extremely  interested  in  organization  of  anything.  I  knov  how  to 
organize.  I  hate  to  see  it  sloppily  done.  So  that,  rather  than  my 
interests  being  topical,  I  would  be  more  likely  to  be  looking  at  the 
structure  of  the  League  and  how  it  could  be  better  operated. 

Morris:   When  you  were  going  on  the  board,  and  as  president,  wasn't  the  League 
going  through  quite  a  reorganization  statewide? 

Charles:  Oh — they  were  having  a  very  hard  time.  They'd  been  slipping  badly, 

and  Mrs.  McLaughlin  and  I  were  worried.  There  was  a  woman  who  wanted 
badly  to  be  president  of  the  League,  and  was  elected  president. 

She  was  a  pathetic  figure,  in  a  way.  Both  Mrs.  McLaughlin  and 
I  had  that  feeling  about  her,  but  she  was  such  a  bad  organizer  that 
I  didn't  have  patience  with  her.  Mrs.  McLaughlin  did,  being  an  older 
woman  looking  at  the  situation. 

This  woman  wouldn't  permit  anybody  to  help  her.  I  would  say  to 
her:  Look,  now,  if  you  do  this  this  way,  it  would  (organizationally, 
you  see)  be  better. 

She  would  say  no..  And  I  finally  realized  that  I  was  so  frus 
trated  that  I  would  have  to  get  out  of  the  League. 


Mrs.  McLaughlin  called  me  up  and  she  said: 
the  beach,  and  you  talk  to  the  waves. 


Now,  you  go  out  to 


She  was  really  a  great  person.  She  wanted  me  to  go  out  there, 
if  I  was  angry,  and  shout  at  the  waves  and  not  shout  at  anybody  else, 
because,  of  course,  she  had  the  long  view,  which  was  that  it  wouldn't 
do  anybody  any  good  for  me  to  try  to  destroy  my — as  it  turned  out — 
predecessors. 

But  I  thought,  when  I  did  resign,  that  I  was  losing  all 
opportunity  to  be  president ;  that  was  the  one  thing  that  I  ever 
really  wanted — to  be  president  of  the  League,  which  I  must  say  was  a 
very  modest  wish,  considering  some  of  the  other  things  that  have 
happened  to  me,  which  I  never  thought  of  at  all;  but  I  respected  the 
League,  you  know. 


19 


Charles:   I  thought  I  vould  love  to  "be  president.  And  I  thought  if  I  were  Just 
president,  I  would  know  how  I  would  get  more  members,  because  the 
League  had  fallen  to  a  very  low — 

Morris:   You  mean  the  League  in  San  Francisco? 

Charles:  Yes,  the  San  Francisco  League.  To  a  low  ebb  in  membership.  And 

there  was  no  excuse  for  it,  although  we  learned  one  thing,  which  I 
think  is  very  important,  and  which  has  been  useful — a  great  many 
things  that  I  learned  in  the  League  have  been  useful  to  me  in  other 
organizations.  One  was  my  perception  that  most  organizations  have 
a  level  of  membership  which  holds  true  for  them  pretty  well. 

Some  organizations  are  not  ever  going  to  be  big  membership 
organizations.  For  instance,  San  Francisco  Planning  and  Urban 
Renewal  Association  [SPUE]  is  like  that.  They  demand  of  their 
members  a  little  more  knowledge  than  Just  Joining  the  Federation  of 
Women's  clubs,  or  some  of  those,  where  they  require  little  of  you. 
Of  course,  the  League's  particularly  bad  in  that  respect,  in  the 
sense  that  they  really  expect  you  to  work.  So  if  you  Join,  you're 
going  to  have  to  contribute  something  one  way  or  another. 

I  have  another  philosophy — which  I  also  learned  from  observation- 
that  in  any  organization  you  can  name,  it's  a  comparative  handful  of 
people  who  do  the  work;  it  always  is — who  do  the  hard  work  of  making 
it  run.  I  have  never  resented  that.  I  have  always  been  one  of  the 
people  doing  the  hard  work,  because  I  enjoy  it — not  because  anybody 
makes  me  do  it ,  but  because  I  like  to  do  it . 

So  I  was  terribly  frustrated  that  year.  That  was  in  '^7,  I 
think.  But  when  my  predecessor's  year  was  over,  the  nominating 
committee  came  to  me  and  asked  me  if  I  would  be  president.  And  I 
was  thrilled,  because  I  really  hadn't  expected — I  really  thought  I 
was  lost  as  far  as  the  League  was  concerned.   I'd  have  to  find  some 
other  way  to  satisfy  myself. 

Morris:   Now  that's  interesting.  You  thought  that  you  had  done  as  much  as 
you  could  in  the  League? 

Charles:  No.   I  thought,  as  much  as  I  would  be  permitted  to  do — that's  what  I 
meant.  It  would  have  been  very  awkward — how  can  I  say  that?  I  have 
to  be  a  little  more  specific  about  that,  and  I'm  not  sure  that  I've 
examined  the  whole  thing. 

I  had  been  working  in  the  League  from,  I  would  say,  1936  to 
19U8.  I'd  been  in  the  League  a  long  time,  and  I  didn't  think  the 
place  for  me  was  to  go  back  again  to  the  bottom  and  work  my  way  up. 
I  thought  I  might  belong  to  something  else.  But  when  I  got  off  the 
board,  and  resigned,  I  Just  felt  that  I  had — 


20 


Morris:   You'd  turned  your  bridges. 

Charles:  Yes.  I'd  left.  See,  I  am  a  person  vho — and  it's  evident  vhen  you 
look  at  my  history  in  organizations — when  I'm  through,  I'm  through. 
Not  in  anger  or  anything  else,  but  I  think  that  dead  hand  of  the  past 
is  Just  something  that  drives  people  crazy. 

When  I  just  got  off  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  in  January,  I  quit. 
That  vas  it.  I  don't  interfere  with  anything  they  do,  and  I  really 
don't  want  to  know.  If  any  of  them  want  to  tell  me,  I'm  delighted 
to  hear,  but  I'm  not  hanging  on,  as  lots  of  people  do;  my  interests 
are  elsewhere.  I've  got  a  lot  of  other  things  to  do. 

I  see  now,  looking  back  on  it,  that  that  was  my  general  attitude 
with  the  League.  When  I  felt  there  was  no  place  for  me,  I  decided 
I'd  better  get  out  and  see  what  else  I  could  do  somewhere  else,  and 
forget  about  the  League.  It  was  a  terrible  disappointment  to  me, 
because  I  happen  to  enjoy  doing  only  what  involves  the  mind. 


21 


1*.   VARIETIES  OF  COMMUNITY  EFFORT 


Volunteer  Service:  Motivation,  Rewards,  and  Hazards 


Charles:   I  can't  get  into  these  busy  organizations,  where  you  really  aren't 
thinking,  you  know.  They  Just  drive  me  crazy. 

Morris :   The  bandage-folding  and  benefit  parties — 

Charles:   Yes.  And,  yet,  as  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  used  to  say  when  I  got  into  the 
business  of  organizing  auxiliaries,  which  I'll  tell  you  about  in  a 
minute,  she'd  say  to  me:  Well,  I  suppose  you  do  need  to  provide 
people  with  things  to  do. 

I  said  I  absolutely  believe  that. 

My  attitude  toward  volunteer  work  is  not  that  it's  the  be-all 
and  end-all  of  life.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  for  whom  it  isn't 
suited,  and  the  whole  business  about  whether  you  should  be  taking 
somebody  else's  Job  is  to  me  not  completely  valid.  I  think  it  needs 
further  discussion. 

But  I  do  believe  that  people  need  the  chance  to  do  something 
for  others.  I  think  part  of  what  a  human  being  needs  is  the  chance 
to  go  and  serve  in  a  hospital  or  in  the  slums  or  wherever  it  may  be, 
because  we  don't  live  a  healthy  life  without  that  sense  of  having 
really  provided  our  talents  to  people  who  couldn't  earn  them,  or 
deserve  them  in  any  way.  I  believe  this,  very  strongly. 

Morris:   Is  an  aspect  of  that  that  volunteer  work  quite  often  helps  people 
know  themselves  better  and  understand  themselves? 

Charles:  Well,  sometimes,  you  see,  they  may  not  even  understand  themselves. 
I  mean,  there  are  a  great  many  people  who  go  through  life  without 
ever  understanding  themselves.  But  I  think  it's  the  responsibility 
of  people  who  are  more  thoughtful  and  given  to  introspection  to  some 


22 


extent,  and  observation,  as  much  as  possible  to  make  it  easy  for 
people  to  live  rewarding  lives,  even  though  they  may  not  knov  why 
they  do  it,  or  what  they  do.  Certainly,  with  all  these  auxiliaries 
that  I've  organized  and  watched  people  participate  in,  there  are 
hundreds  of  people  who  Just  feel  completely  themselves  when  they're 
giving  service  in  a  hospital  or  somewhere  else;  but  if  you  sat  them 
down  and  asked  them  why,  they  don't  know  why. 

Morris:   Mrs.  Mclaughlin  spoke  of  the  auxiliaries  as  a  new  social  tool.  What 
did  she  mean  by  that? 

Charles:  Yes.  Well,  one  thing  that  made  her  interesting  was  this  philosophical 
bent  in  her  mind.   She  observed  what  everybody  did,  and  then  put  it 
into  a  philosophical  context.  The  way  I  happened  to  get  into  auxil 
iaries  in  a  major  way  was  when  I  was  elected  to  the  Stanford  Board  of 
Trustees,  which  was  later,  in  195^.   Before  I  talk  about  that  I'll  go 
back  a  bit. 

I've  often  said  to  Leslie  Luttgens,  who  is  going  through  that 
phase  in  her  life  now,  that  a  lot  of  things  happen  all  at  once  to 
you,  and  you  have  to  be  sure  you  don't  get  unbalanced  by  it,  because 
society  sees  that  you're  liked  by  somebody  and  then  they  want  you, 
you  know. 

So  you  get  a  whole  little  spate  of  honors,  so  to  speak,  happening 
to  you. 

Morris:   And  also  demands  for  your  time. 

Charles:  Well,  demands,  but  those  aren't  so  difficult  to  deal  with  as  are  the 
honors  that  come,  you  know.  They  want  you  to  be  on  important  boards 
and  important  things,  and  you  have  to  be  careful  that  you  don't  get 
your  head  turned.  That's  what.  You  see,  you  have  to  keep  your  feet 
and  realize  those  things  don't  continue  happening.  They  just 
happened  from  about  '1*8  to  about  '  51* — it  was  a  long  period  there. 

Morris:   After  you  had  gone  through  the  chairs  in  the  League  of  Women  Voters? 

Charles:  After  I  was  elected  president  of  the  League,  these  things  started  to 

happen,  in  'U8.  It  was  also  in  'U8  that  I  was  elected  to  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation.  And  I  had  been  on  the  executive  committee  of  the  Community 
Chest,  where  I  don't  think  they'd  ever  had  a  woman  before.  Not  very 
many,  anyway.  Just  one  thing  after  another,  in  the  seats  of  the 
.mighty,  so  to  speak. 

I  have  too  much  Stockton  in  me  to  allow  myself  to  become  over 
whelmed  by  this;  I  mean,  I  have  to  sit  down  and  think:  Who  am  I,  and 
what  can  I  do  to  Justify  all  this?  It  was  Just  a  series—really  much 
like  Leslie  has  been  asked  to  do  this  last  year  or  two.   But  these 
things  don't  last,  and  you  have  to  have  enough  in  you  to  keep  you 
going  during  the  periods  that  they  don't  last. 


23 


Stanford  Board  of  Trustees. 


Charles:  But,  in  any  case,  I  got  out  of  the  League  after  two  years  as  president 
and,  at  some  point  along  in  there,  I  was  elected  honorary  member  of 
the  Junior  League  of  San  Francisco,  and  I  was  making  speeches 
constantly  and  advising  the  Junior  League  on  various  things.  Then, 
in  195^,  I  was  absolutely  astounded  when  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  called 
and  asked  if  he  could  come  call  on  me.   I  said:  What  would  you  call 
on  me  for? 

He  said:  Well,  I  just  want  to  come  see  you. 

And  so  I  said:  Well,  I'll  come  down  to  your  office.   I  don't 
want  you  to  have  to  come  out  here. 

This  was  very  typical  of  me  to  have  done  that.  He  didn't  like 
that  much,  but  that's  the  way  we  left  it. 

Well,  he  was  asking  me  to  join  the  board  of  trustees  of  Stanford, 
and  I  said:   I  can't.   I  mean,  I  don't  understand  this. 

And  he  said:  They  would  have  my  head  if  I  didn't  ask  you. 
You're  the  person  in  San  Francisco  who  has  accomplished  the  most,  as 
far  as  Stanford  is  concerned. 

I  had  never  really  done  any  work  to  speak  of  in  the  Stanford 
organizations  themselves,  though  I  think  I  had  been  on  the  Stanford 
Alumni  Board  for  a  while. 

Morris:   I  have  been  evolving  a  theory  that  a  distinguished  alumna  in  turn 
sheds  luster  on  the  educational  institution. 

Charles:  Well,  I  guess  it  goes  both  ways,  you  know.  But  I  hadn't  worked  my 
way  up  through  Stanford  channels,  is  what  I  mean.  So  that  it 
surprised  me,  because  I  knew  there  were  a  lot  of  people  who'd  done 
a  lot  of  legwork — but  that  isn't  what  they  want  on  the  board  of 
trustees.  They  want  people  who've  had  a  wide  experience,  which  I 
was  then,  at  that  time,  beginning  to  have. 

Morris:   Had  they  had  a  woman  as  a  trustee? 

Charles:  Yes.  They  had  one,  May  Goodan,  whose  brother  is  Norman  Chandler. 

They  had  elected  May  some  ten  years  before,  and  they  loved  May  because 
she  didn't  interfere  with  anything;  but  she's  a  lovely  woman,  Just 
lovely.   She  and  I  were  great  friends. 

By  not  interfering,  I  mean  May  Just  had  a  great  deal  of  digni 
fied  restraint  about  the  way  she  did  things,  but  she  had  her  opinions 
and  so  forth.   She  was  so  kind  to  me  when  I  came  on  that  board. 


24 


Charles:  Another  woman  came  on  the  "board  at  the  same  time,  because  they  were 
expanding  the  "board  to  include  some  alumni  trustees,  whose  terms 
would  be  shorter. 

I  was  elected  for  ten  years,  and  the  alumni  trustee  was  elected 
for  five.  There  were  five  alumni  trustees  that  they  brought  on.  Well, 
it  didn't  work  at  all.  The  alumni  trustees  became  very  resentful  of 
the  fact  that  they  were  second  class.  They  called  themselves  'second 
class  trustees',  which  nobody  meant,  but  the  minute  you  gave  them  a 
different  term  from  anybody  else,  you  practically  guaranteed — 

Morris:   Did  it  make  a  difference  in  their  status? 

Charles:  No.   It  didn't  make  any  difference  in  how  they  were  viewed.   It  made 
a  difference  in  how  they  viewed  themselves,  which,  after  all,  is  the 
most  important  thing — self-esteem.  They  Just  had  a  feeling  that 
somehow  they'd  been  dragged  in  to  represent  the  alumni  and  didn't 
have  the  same  position  that  the  rest  of  us  did  who  had  been  elected 
directly. 

So  the  board  became  very  upset  about  that  after  a  few  years ,  and 
it  penetrated,  and  they  changed  the  system,  which  now  is  a  much  better 
system,  where  they  are  now  actually  nominated  by  the  alumni  associ 
ation.  At  that  time,  they  were  elected  by  the  board  of  trustees 
itself,  you  see. 

Morris:   As  a  self-perpetuating — 

Charles:  Well,  the  board  of  trustees  is  self-perpetuating,  but  they  didn't 

release  to  anybody  else  the  Job  of  selecting  who  the  alumni  trustees 
would  be.  They  would  ask  the  alumni  association  to  give  them  ten 
names,  and  they  would  pick  two  or  three  from  those  ten,  and  they 
would  then  come  on  for  a  short  term  rather  than  a  long  term.  It  was 
guaranteed  to  cause  trouble,  and  it  did  cause  trouble.  And  now  the 
present  system  we  have  is  very  good.   It  really  works  well.  We  get 
some  fascinating  young  trustees  as  a  result. 

Morris:   There  were  three  of  you  women,  then,  at  that  time. 

Charles:  Yes,  for  a  while.  That's  right.  Then  I  was  put  on  the  nominating 
committee  several  years  later.  Judge  Homer  Spence,  who's  now  dead, 
was  the  chairman  of  the  nominating  committee,  and  he  said  to  me: 
Caroline,  I  want  to  talk  to  you  about  something  serious,  and  I  want 
you  to  pay  attention  to  this.  If  you  allow  any  one  of  these  women 
to  go  off  the  board  without  being  replaced  by  a  woman,  you  will  never 
get  another  woman  on.  The  men  don't  want  it.  They  don't  know  they 
don't  want  it,  but  they  don't  want  it. 


25 


Charles:  Well,  this  is  exactly  what  happened,  because  very  shortly,  one  of  the 
women  decided  to  go  off.  She  was  from  Los  Angeles.  And  the  men  said: 
Now,  you  know  we  really  need  a  man  down  there  from  Los  Angeles.  So 
we  really  shouldn't  get  another  woman. 

Well,  I  didn't  fight  about  that  because  I  am  not  such  a  feminist 
that  I  can't  figure  that  we  hadn't  had  awfully  good  luck  with  the 
women  that  we'd  gotten,  and  maybe  we'd  get  a  better  man  trustee. 

But  that's  exactly  what  happened  then;  they  never  could  make  that 
seat  available  to  a  woman  again.  They  weren't  willing  to  do  it. 
Homer  knew  what  he  was  talking  about,  exactly. 

Morris:   Were  you  conscious,  sitting  on  the  board,  that  the  men  trustees  didn't 
pay  that  much  attention  to  your  ideas? 

Charles:  No.  Because  I  don't  permit  myself  to  be  on  a  board  where  they  don't 
pay  attention  to  my  ideas,  and  they  soon  realized  that,  and  we've 
always  gotten  along  fine.  I  try  to  know  what  I'm  talking  about.  All 
this  I  learned  in  the  League  of  Women  Voters.  For  the  first  year  or 
two  I  didn't  do  much  talking,  but  as  soon  as  I  found  out  what  was 
going  on  and  where  I  thought  certain  things  weren't  taken  into 
consideration,  I  would  speak  up  at  the  board,  and  the  men  listened  to 
me. 

I've  always  had  a  happy  relationship  on  that  board,  with  all 
those  men.  They  don't  always  agree  with  me,  but  they  respect  me,  and 
I've  been  chairman  of  some  of  their  most  important  committees.  They 
never  had  a  woman  chairman  before,  for  anything.   I've  been  treated 
well  by  the  men,  and  I  never  felt  that  it  was  a  handicap  to  be  a 
woman  on  that  board. 

May  Goodan  and  I  were  very  different.   I  loved  May  dearly  for 
respecting  my  kind  of  a  person,  because  she  was  not  apt  to  get  into 
situations  on  the  board  unless  she  Just  felt  very  strongly.  Even 
then,  she'd  be  satisfied  to  Just  say  it  and  then  forget  it;  but  if •! 
were  dissatisfied  with  a  situation,  I  would  try  to  keep  an  eye  on  the 
situation,  and  change  it  if  I  possibly  could. 

Morris:   Keep  working  at  it — ? 

Charles:  Keep  working  at  it  without  making — one  of  the  first  rules  on  any 

board,  whether  you're  a  man  or  a  woman,  is  not  to  make  yourself  so 
obnoxious  that  nobody  wants  to  work  with  you.  There's  a  way  to  keep 
hammering  at  things  in  a  perfectly  good-natured,  good-humored — good 
humor  is  the  whole  secret  of  the  thing.   You  can  get  quite  a  lot  done 
that  way,  if  you  don't  have  to  be  unpleasant  about  it. 


26 


Unifying  Influence  of  Hospital  Auxiliaries 


Charles:  So,  as  soon  as  I  got  on  the  board,  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  put  me  on  a  small 
committee  to  see  what  was  to  be  done  about  Stanford  Hospital  in  San 
Francisco,  which  was  a  great  sore  thumb  around  there.  They  wanted  to 
build  a  hospital  down  in  Palo  Alto  on  the  campus,  and  a  med  school. 
So,  anyway,  one  of  the  things  that  I  did  was  to  help  them  form  an 
auxiliary  at  the  hospital. 

Morris:   Here  in  San  Francisco? 

Charles:  In  San  Francisco.  That  was  really  my  first  big  organization  job  of 
that  sort.  And,  of  course,  it  was  so  successful — we  opened 
like  Venus,  springing  from  the  head  of  whoever 's  head  she  sprang  from, 
complete  with  four  hundred  members  the  day  we  announced  it. 

I  have  some  theories  about  organization,  which  bore  fruit,  which 
was  that  I  started  with  a  small  committee.   I  just  said  to  them:  For 
six  months,  we're  not  announcing  ourselves  or  anything.  We  could 
keep  enlarging  this  committee  in  a  quiet  way,  bringing  in  other 
people,  but  we're  going  to  get  our  feet  on  the  ground  first,  and  find 
out  how  an  auxiliary  can  work — whether  the  doctors  will  allow  them  to 
work — before  we  announce  that  we  have  this. 

So  by  the  time  we  announced  that  we  had  an  auxiliary,  we  had 
four  hundred  members,  had  places  for  all  our  volunteers.  Leslie 
Luttgens  turned  up  in  San  Francisco  just  about  that  time,  and  became 
my  chairman  of  volunteers.  So  I  knew,  because  she's  a  very  well- 
organized  person,  that  that  would  be  taken  care  of. 

Morris:   Had  she  had  previous  hospital  auxiliary  experience? 

Charles:  Well,  her  husband's  a  doctor.  So  she  knew  about  hospitals  and  she'd 
been  in  the  League  of  Women  Voters  in  Rochester.  I  think  that's 
where  they  came  from. 

No,  I  directed  everything.  I'm  really  terrible  about  things  like 
that.  I  mean,  if  I'm  going  to  do  it,  then  I've  got  to  have  it  go  the 
way  I  think  it  ought  to  go,  and  be  done  the  way  I  want  it.  And 
Leslie  was  marvelous  about  working  that  way. 

But  then,  you  know,  the  minute  you  make  a  success  of  anything, 
then  you're  Just  in  demand,  and  I  was  invited  to  organize  this  and 
that  and  the  other  thing.  My  hardest  problem  then  was  to  make  sure 
that  they  understood  that  I  wasn't  going  to  stay  in  it.  I  would 
organize  it  for  them,  but  they  were  going  to  have  to  carry  on. 

We  have  some  successful  things  that  came  out  of  that  and  some 
that  have  just  limped  along  and  never  gotten  anywhere. 


27 


Morris:   Your  primary  interest  in  starting  the  auxiliary  vas  to  develop  a  base 
of  support  for  a  nev  building? 

Charles:  No.  The  hospital  in  San  Francisco  and  the  medical  school  were  in 

such  an  unsettled  state  because  the  decision  to  move  it  had  finally 
been  made  (and  although  the  men  were  doubtful,  it  proved  to  be  a  good 
thing).  This  had  upset  the  doctors — some  of  them — terribly,  and 
there  was  just  this  great  pulling  and  hauling.  The  thing  that  seemed 
to  me  needed  to  be  done  was  to  see  if  we  could  unify  something  in 
that  hospital — unify  the  doctors;  you  never  had  a  meeting  when  they 
weren't  screaming  and  yelling. 

Really,  their  behavior  always  amazed  me.   I  suppose,  being  a 
lawyer's  wife,  where  you  don't  yell,  you  Just  quietly  get  things  done, 
you  know  [laughs],  it  surprised  me  that  the  doctors  didn't  know  any 
of  those  elementary  facts.  I  guess  plenty  of  them  do,  but — oh,  the 
terrible  anger  over  this  thing.   I  thought  if  we  could  get  the  women 
working  together  and  giving  help  inside  the  hospital  that  it  would  be 
just  a  healthy  situation,  and  it  proved  to  be  entirely  that. 

The  women  all  joined — I  didn't  separate  doctors'  wives  from  lay 
people  at  all,  which  is  much  the  best  way  to  do  it — and  really  had  a 
marvelous  experience  with  that  thing.  And  when  the  hospital  finally 
did  move  down  to  Palo  Alto  and  when  the  Presbyterian  church  came  in 
to  take  over  the  buildings  in  San  Francisco,  they  had  that  unified 
body  of  volunteers.  That's  what  kept  it  together  for  a  little  while. 
There  were  those  women,  all  working  together  for  the  good  of  the 
hospital,  and  they  accepted  the  change  in — 

Morris:   From  being  Stanford  Hospital  to  being  Presbyterian  Hospital. 

Charles:   Yes.   Because  they  were  working  for  the  hospital.  They  weren't 

concerned  with  all  the  rows  and  fights,  and  people  didn't  understand 
that.  But  the  thing  that  always  really  delighted  me  happened  later. 
They  had  a  system  whereby  they  sent  out  a  ballot  to  the  members,  to 
elect  their  officers;  and  about  four  years  after  I  was  president, 
somebody  called  me  and  said:  Would  you  be  willing  to  allow  your 
name  to  go  on  the  ballot  as  a  member  of  the  nominating  committee? 

That  was  the  one  committee  that  had  choices;  you  voted  for  two 
out  of  four,  you  see.  And  the  others  were  all  white  ballot — just 
somebody  for  president  and  a  single  slate.  This  person  who  asked  me 
said:   Of  course,  Mrs.  Charles,  you'd  just  win  hands  down. 

But  nobody  knew  me  any  more,  and  I  lost  hands  down.  I  loved 
that.   Oh,  they  hated  to  break  that  to  me,  and  I  said:   Oh,  I  am  so 
happy — because  I  had,  as  I  always  do,  gotten  clear  out  of  it  when  I 
got  out  of  it— clear  out.  I  just  went  on  to  other  things  that  I 
wanted  to  do. 


28 


Charles:  And  nobody  knew  me,  particularly,  or  cared  whether  I  was  in  there  or 
not.  There  was  a  whole  new  group.  Well,  that's  what  you  want.   I 
mean,  things  must  go  on,  and  you  have  to  leave  them  so  that  they  can 
go  on  to  being  what  they  are. 


Building  Organizational  Strength 


Morris:   Part  of  the  problem  of  organizing  is  to  develop  a  cadre  of  continuing 
leadership? 

Charles:  Well,  it  is  if  you  can.  You  can't  always,  and  I  have  never  put  too 
much  stock  iij  it,  because  my  observation  is  that  leadership  emerges, 
really,  if  ifs  going  to,  and  if  it  doesn't,  there's  very  little  you 
can  do.   You  can  get  somebody  to  promise  you  that  they'll  be  the  next 
president,  and  then  they'll  decide  they  don't  want  to  be,  or  their 
husband  moves,  or  something  happens.  I've  never  put  great  emphasis 
on  that  notion  of  selecting  who's  going  to  succeed. 

My  emphasis  in  organizing  is  the  organizational  strength  in 
itself — how  many  people  you  can  structure  on  the  way  down  as  chairman 
of  subcommittees,  to  learn  more  about  this,  that,  or  the  other  thing. 
That's  where  the  survival  is,  down  in  the  ranks.  Really,  you  can 
find  leaders,  and  leaders  are  very  uneven.   You  get  a  good  one,  you 
get  a  weak  one,  but  a  good  organization  can  survive  that.  They'll 
have  a  year  of  a  bad  leader,  and  things '11  go  bad,  and  then  some 
body  '11  get  an  idea  of  who  it  ought  to  be,  and  they'll  put  somebody 
in  and  it'll  go. 

So  that  I  don't  worry  very  much  about  that.   I  think  of  the 
inner  strength,  of  how  you  can  get  these  people  and  give  them  some 
thing  to  do,  not  always  with  an  object  of  being  the  next  president, 
but  being  somebody  who  knows  all  about  running  the  gift  shop,  or 
supervising  the  volunteer's  in  various  departments,  or  whatever  the 
needs  are.  You  have  to  structure  it  so  that  there  is  a  hierarchy  of 
people  interested  in  each  different  aspect  of  it,  and  that's  where 
the  strength  is.  I  have  always  felt  that. 

I've  never  worried  very  much  about  the  next  president;  the  main 
thing  is  to  get  out — I  had  a  lovely  young  woman  come  to  see  me  one 
day,  who  was  being  forced  out  of  her  organization,  which  she  had 
founded.   I  said:  Just  get  out  gracefully. 

Because  it  was  ten  years  old.   She'd  been  there  too  long. 
Nobody — society  won't  tolerate  you  being  in  that  long.  And  you'd 
better  get  out  yourself  and  not  have  people  force  you  out,  because 
that's  painful.   You  may  be  the  best  person  in  the  world,  but  people 
won't  stand  for  it. 


29 


Morris:   I  have  heard  that  theory  expounded  by  other  women  whose  leadership 

in  communuty  organizations  I  admire.  It  doesn't  seem  to  be  generally 
accepted  in  the  political  sphere. 

Charles:  No,  it's  not.  And  that's  why  you  get,  I  think,  so  many  difficulties 
in  this  political  sphere. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  believe  that  such  things  as  a  board  of 
trustees  really  can't  profit  with  too  short  terms  because  there's 
too  much  to  learn  about  a  university,  for  instance.  You  have  to 
absorb  it;  you  can't  go  sit  down  and  study  it,  because  what  you're 
learning  is  how  people  behave  in  the  board,  how  the  professors  act, 
where  the  lines  of  power  are.  Those  things  you  don't  learn  in  a 
minute,  nor  do  you  learn  them  by  reading  them  somewhere.  You  learn 
them  by  observing. 

I've  been  very  much  in  favor  of  the  long  terms  on  the  Stanford 
board.   Now  I'm  completing  my  twentieth  year,  and  I  go  out  next  year 
because  I'll  be  seventy  and  we  do  have,  which  we  did  not  have — when  I 
came  on  the  Staford  board,  there  was  no  age  limit,  and  you  never  saw 
so  many  old  men  in  your  life  as  there  were  on  that  board.   Of  course, 
they  looked  awfully  old  to  me,  because  twenty  years  ago  I  was  much 
younger  and  would 've  thought  that  somebody  my  age  was  fit  to  be  pushed 
off  the  cliff,  you  know. 

But  there  is  a  limit,  of  course.  Homer  Spence  spoke  to  me  and 
he  said:   Caroline,  I'm  going  to  be  seventy  this  year,  and  I  am  going 
to  put  in  a  new  by-law  because  it  affects  me,  and  then  nobody  can  say 
that  I  didn't  live  up  to  it  myself.  He  said:  I  wouldn't  have  been 
able  to  do  it  before,  because  I  wasn't  seventy  myself.  But  it  forces 
me  off  along  with  everybody  else. 

Well,  the  way  we  did  that  at  Stanford  was  to  agree  that  you 
retire  at  seventy,  but  that  any  emeriti  could  always  come  to  a  meeting 
and  vote.  Now,  at  first  they  did,  but  now  we  almost  never  see  an 
emeritus. 

Morris:   That's  an  interesting  device. 

Charles:  Well,  it  eased  the  situation  a  bit.  And  a  few  people  did  continue 

to  come,  but  I  don't  intend  to  ever  go  after  next  year  because  I  just 
think  things  go  better. 

And  I  am  always  so  busy.   I  expect  to  be  very  busy,  as  long  as 
I  am  alive  and  active.  One  thing  I  was  saying  to  Leslie  the  other 
day  was  that  it  really  pays  to  keep  certain  things  in  your  life 
where  you  work  at  the  lower  level,  rather  than  the  top  level,  because 
nobody  can  take  that  away  from  you. 


30 


Charles:  With  this  bicentennial  thing,  I'm  Just  trying  to  help  them  get  out 
of  an  organizational  situation  that  they've  got  to  get  out  of.  I 
have  declined  to  have  any  Job  at  all  on  the  thing  once  we  get  it  on 
the  road.  Well,  one  of  the  young  men,  vho  was  here  today,  wants  to 
be  the  head.  I'm  delighted.  He's  not  taking  anything  away  from  me 
at  all. 

I'm  kind  of  a  dominating  force  in  a  committee,  as  I  well  know, 
because  I  get  impatient  with  people  not  facing  the  Job  they  have  to 
do  and  then  figuring  out  how  they're  going  to  do  it  the  best.  So 
that  I  am  always  working  in  a  few  things  where  I'm  not  the  head  of 
it  all,  but  sort  of  working  in  the  vineyard  for  it.  And  with  me,  it 
mostly  takes  the  form  of  stepping  into  situations  where  people  call 
me  and  say:  Will  you  help? 

Morris :   We  hit  a  snag? 

Charles:   Yes.   You  know — something's  wrong. 

Morris:   That's  often  called  troubleshooting. 

Charles:   Yes.  And  then  I  go  in  and  see  what  I  can  do  to  help  them.   Some 

people  you  can't  help  [laughs],  unfortunately.  But  you  can't  afford 
to  get  to  a  place  where  your  ego  or  something  in  you  is  dependent 
upon  important  Jobs.  Otherwise,  there's  no  satisfaction  in  it, 
really,  because  you  don't  fool  yourself  very  long  about  that — that 
you  only  like  it  because  you  happen  to  be  the  top  person  in  it.  The 
main  thing  is,  you  must  like  it  because  you  like  doing  that,  and  you 
believe  in  the  thing  that  you're  doing. 


Other  Directions:   The  Housing  Authority  and  Public  Television 


Charles:   I  have  been  willing  to  work  in  quite  a  variety  of  things  because  I 

believe  in  the  good  health  of  the  community,  and  that  it's  dependent 
on  community  effort  in  many  directions.  Otherwise,  you  Just  don't 
have  a  democracy,  and  you  won't  have  one  very  long  if  you  don't  have 
citizen  groups  working  in  a  variety  of  things.  So  I  have  done 
things — for  instance,  I  was  on  the  housing  authority,  and  ended  up 
being  chairman  of  it.  And  I  got  off  that  to  be  chairman  of  KQED. 

Now,  I  was  put  on  the  housing  authority  by  political  appointment , 
because  the  mayor,  who  was  John  Shelley  at  that  time,  decided  he  was 
going  to  appoint  me  to  something  [laughs], 

Morris:   It  was  you  he  wanted? 


31 


Charles:   Yes,  that's  right.  And  so  he  said  to  somebody:   I  vender  if 
Mrs.  Charles  vould  be  interested  in  the  housing  authority. 

Well,  I'm  interested  in  any  form  of  organization.   I'm  interested 
in  helping  people  as  they  need  it  and,  of  course,  you'd  never  find  a 
place  where  they  needed  it  more  than  in  the  housing  authority.  But 
it  had  never  been  a  particular  field  of  mine  and  I  didn't  intend  to 
become  an  expert  on  housing,  because  I  felt  that  my  job — the  staff  is 
expert  on  housing;  my  job  is  people. 

That  is  the  thing  I've  been  learning  ever  since  I  got  out  of 
college — hov  to  be  most  helpful  to  people,  individuals,  and  to  try  to 
perceive  vhat  their  problems  are  and  how  the  organizational  situation 
that  relates  to  them  either  helps  or  prevents  them  in  any  form  of 
self-realization.   I  had  a  very  interesting  time  in  the  housing 
authority,  enjoyed  the  experience. 

I  think,  myself,  that  there's  going  to  have  to  be  another  way  to 
house  people  who  can't  afford  housing,  because  this  scheme  is  defunct, 
won't  work.  I  don't  know  who's  going  to  come  up  with  a  creative  idea, 
but  there's  going  to  have  to  be  one.  I  d'idn't  mean  to  leave  a  sinking 
ship,  but  the  fact  is  that  after  I  got  into  KQED,  about  ten  years  ago, 
on  the  board,  I  became  interested  in  public  television. 

It  really  became  very  important  to  me  to  try  to  combat  the 
efforts  to  silence  public  television.  And  there  were  many,  because 
a  great  many  people  don't  want  the  kind  of  thing  that  public  tele 
vision  does  in  contrast  to  commercial  television.   I  mean  particularly 
in  freedom  of  political  comment  and  that  sort  of  thing. 

We  went  through  three  years  in  Washington — two  with  the  Nixon 
administration — when  I  thought  public  television  was  dead.   I  mean, 
I  just  thought  we  couldn't  save  it.   If  it  hadn't  been  for  Watergate, 
we  wouldn't  have  saved  it.   I  think  Nixon  had  really  planned  how  he 
was  going  to  destroy  it,  and  he  would  have  been  able  to  do  it.  There 
were  eight  of  us  fighting  that  battle  from  all  over  the  country.  We'd 
been  pulled  together  (I  won't  go  into  that  long  story) — so  that  I  have, 
and  had,  more  of  a  passion  about  freedom  of  information  and  the 
necessity  of  it,  and  the  fact  that  I  see  a  role  for  myself  in  it, 
than  I  have,  for  instance,  about  public  housing — because  I  think  it's 
a  necessity,  but  we  don't  know  how  to  do  it. 

Now,  why  should  these  housing  developments  turn  into  slums 
overnight?  Society's  Just  got  to  face  it — they're  not  really  doing 
what  they  think  they're  doing.  They're  really,  by  and  large, 
dangerous,  dirty  places  for  people  to  have  to  live.  And  the  evident 
reason  is  that  the  federal  government  doesn't  appropriate  enough  for 
maintenance.  That  lack  was  built  into  the  original  bill  for  public 
housing,  which  guaranteed  that  no  money  would  be  appropriated  for 


32 


Charles:  maintenance.  The  "buildings  would  be  built,  and  the  rent  would 
provide  the  maintenance.  But  the  rents  were  so  low,  that  you 
couldn't  do  it. 

Aren't  we  getting  close  to  our  deadline?  It's  12:25. 

Morris:   Yes.  Just  about  there.  The  Foundation,  then,  was  Just  one  of  many 
recognitions  of  your  abilities  that  came  to  you  at  the  same  time. 

Charles:  That's  very  true.   I  apologize;  you  shouldn't  have  let  me  get  so  far 
off. 

Morris:   That's  quite  all  right.  Your  perceptions  of  these  other  activities 
are  very  valuable . 


33 


5.   EARLY  EXPERIENCE  ON  THE  ROSENBERG  FOUNDATION  BOARD 


Charlie  Elkus  [Charles  de  Young  Elkus,  Sr. ] 


Charles:   I  might  say  a  few  words  about  the  Foundation. 

It  was  Charlie  Elkus  who  invited  me  to  come  onto  the  board  of 
the  Foundation.   I  was  then  president  of  the  League.   I  only  knew 
Charlie  slightly.  He  was  a  lawyer,  and  my  husband  was  a  lawyer,  and 
he  knew  my  husband  quite  well,  though  Al  is  much  younger  than  Charlie. 
Actually,  Charlie  Elkus  had  put  Al  on  the  Public  Welfare  Commission. 

Charlie  was  a  great  power  in  San  Francisco  in  many,  many  ways, 
and  he  was  the  Foundation;  I  simply  say  that.   He  was  the  Foundation, 
as  I  soon  learned  after  I  got  onto  the  board.   He  was  an  extraordi 
nary  man;  the  whole  town  respected  him.  He  was  like  all  extraordinary 
people.   He  was  opinionated  about  the  things  he  was  opinionated  about, 
but  he  was  a  basically  good  person.  You  might  not  agree  with  his 
opinion,  but  you  had  to  agree  with  him  as  a  fine,  great  man.   Of 
course,  Leslie  Ganyard  was  there  as  executive  when  I  came  in,  and 
Leslie  had  also  been  personally  selected  by  Charlie,  who,  as  you  know, 
drew  the  will  for  the  establishing  of  the  Foundation. 

Morris:   He  had  been  Max  Rosenberg's  personal  attorney? 

Charles:   Yes.   Now,  Ruth  Chance  thinks  that  the  board  was  still  in  the  process 
of  being  enlarged  when  I  came  on,  and  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Morris:   It  was  already  nine.* 


•Rosenberg  Foundation,  1937-19^6  lists  five  board  members  for  1936-1*0, 
with  Charles  Elkus  added  in  1938.  A  sixth  board  member  was  added  in 
19Ul,  a  seventh  in  19^3,  and  two  more  (to  arrive  at  the  final  nine) 
in  19U6.  By  19^5,  Louise  Rosenberg  Bransten  was  the  only  original 
member  remaining  on  the  board,  and  the  only  relative  of  the  founder. 
Ed. 


34 


Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


It  vas  nine  people.   It  may  have  been  eight,  three  years  before.  But 
in  my  day  it  was  nine,  and  that's  the  way  we  kept  it. 

In  other  words,  it  was  already  nine  when  you  came  on  the  board. 

Yes,  I  believe  so.  The  point  is  that  we  revised  our  by-laws  quite 

frequently  to  accommodate  our  opinions — [laughs]  oh,  I  would  say  to 

accommodate  Charlie's  opinions,  because  he  was  a  very  wise  man  and 
knew  exactly  what  he  was  doing. 


What  was  it  that  he  was  opinionated  about? 
he  thought  should  be  done? 


What  was  his  view  of  what 


For  instance,  he  believed  that  when  you  gave  money,  you  gave  it  to  a 
person,  not  to  an  organization.   So  that  when  you  were  asked  for 
money  to  support  this  or  that  activity,  it  behooved  you  to  know  who 
was  going  to  carry  it  out,  because  the  activity  could  be  worthwhile, 
but  without  competent  leadership  it  wouldn't  work.  And,  so,  that  was 
what  we  always  looked  for;  and  when  Mrs.  Ganyard  brought  in  proposals, 
we  always  were  told  who  were  the  persons  proposed  to  lead  whatever 
this  particular  thing  might  be. 

I  think  Charlie  was  quite  right  about  that.  He  was  very  firm 
about  that.  He  also  had  people  up  and  down  the  state  who  he  thought 
were  without  fault  and  could  always  lead  something  successful.   So 
that  the  Foundation  tended  to  view  with  great  optimism  any  project 
that  was  selected  by  somebody  like,  for  instance,  Karl  Holton,  who 
was  the  head  of  the  Youth  Authority.   Charlie  just  thought  he  was  the 
greatest  man,  and  he  was  a  fine  man.  Anything  that  came  in  under  his 
wing  was  something  we  really  ought  to  do. 

We  had  an  interesting  board  at  that  time.   I  think  all  of  them 
had  probably  been  hand-picked  by  Charlie.  For  instance,  Ward 
Mailliard  was  on.  Now,  you  couldn't  imagine  a  more  different  man 
from  Charlie  Elkus.  Ward  was  old  San  Francisco  successful  business 
man  and  had  many  of  the  traits  of  a  successful  businessman — rather 
arbitrary  statements  of  this,  that,  and  the  other  thing.   Every  now 
and  then  he  would  propose  something  that  wasn't  strictly  within  our 
limits,  but  Charlie  would  then  recommend  that  we  do  that.   Charlie 
dominated  the  board,  and  none  of  us  were  prepared  to  really  fight 
with  him,  because  there  was  nothing  wrong  with  what  he  wanted  to  do 
or  not  do,  and  he  would  make  a  concession. 

We  had  a  very  strong  Catholic  on  the  board  who  was  really  very 
close  to  the  archdiocese.  And  occasionally  we  ran  into  problems 
about  proposals  that  were  close  to  Catholic  interests. 


Morris:   Would  that  have  been  Edward  Parsons? 


35 


Charles:  No — that  was  Bishop  Parsons,  of  course.  Parsons  was  the  Episcopal 

church.   He  was  a  grand  old  man,  just  a  marvelous  person  with  great — 
well,  as  the  Episcopalians  do,  he  believed  in  society's  dignity.   It 
wasn't  like  some  of  our  preachers  now,  who  go  way  off  to  the  left  in 
their  sympathies.  That  wouldn't  have  "been  Bishop  Parson's  way,  but 
he  still  was  very  concerned  with  the  human  individual,  and  how  things 
would  affect  the  individual,  in  whatever  you  did. 

Who  else  was  on  the  board? 
Morris:   Monroe  Deutsch,  from  UC. 

Charles:  Yes.   He  was  on  for  a  while;  and,  of  course,  he  was  a  great  man. 

Charlie  really  picked  very  important  figures.  I'm  glad  to  have  you 
mention  that,  because  I  hadn't  thought  about  that.  But  every  board 
member  did  represent  something  very  important. 

Morris:   And  there  was  Paul  Edwards. 

Charles:   Yes.  Paul,  you  see,  had  been  president  of  the  board  of  trustees  at 
Stanford.   I  think  he  was  president  at  that  time.  He  also  was  the 
editor  of  the  News.  Each  person  in  his  own  right  was  a  very 
distinguished  person  who  had  accomplished  a  great  deal. 

Morris:   And  Charlotte  Mack. 

Charles:  Well,  Charlotte  was  before  me.   I  never  knew  Charlotte. 
Morris:   I  see.   She'd  gone  off  the  board  by  the  time  you  went  on. 
Why  don't  we  stop  here  for  today? 


Morris: 


Charles: 


[Interview  2:   16  October  1974]//// 

When  we  finished  last  time,  we  were  talking  about  some  of  the  people 
on  the  board  when  you  Joined  the  Rosenberg  Foundation. 

Just  after  I  turned  off  the  machine,  you  commented  that  it  was 
very  interesting  how  the  board  worked  together.  That  might  be  a  good 
place  to  start. 

Well,  looking  back  at  that  board,  I  don't  think  I  had  the  slightest 
idea  at  the  time  what  a  truly  distinguished  board  it  was.  As  I 
mentioned,  it  was  composed  of  the  president  of  the  Stanford  board  of 
trustees,  the  provost  of  the  University  of  California,  several 
distinguished  businessmen,  and  Ellie  Sloss,  who  was  a  Fleishhacker 
and  who  is  a  perfectly  lovely  woman  and  a  very  unusual  person. 


36 


Charles:  We  vere  really  in  the  company  of  the  kind  of  lay  people  who  I  think 
are  needed  to  make  community  organizations  work.  And  sometimes  we 
forget  about  that.   I  just  wanted  to  say  as  a  generalization  that 
I've  become  very  uneasy  when  I  see  too  many  people  who  are  profes 
sionals  in  the  social  welfare  business  getting  onto  the  boards  of 
directors  of  community  organizations.   I  don't  mean  that  I  have  any 
prejudice  against  fine  people  who  are  professionals  in  that  field, 
but  I  think  that  the  theory  of  lay  boards  really  necessitates  that 
the  board  not  be  professionally  involved  in  the  thing  that  you're 
doing;  otherwise  you  don't  get  that  kind  of  detached  perspective  on 
the  job  that  comes  from  people  who  really  don't  know  anything  about 
it  professionally  or  theoretically,  but  who  are  viewing  society  as 
they  see  it,  and  with  their  ideas  for  improvement. 

And  that  certainly  was  a  distinguished  board  in  that  respect. 


Development  of  Public  Compassion 


Charles:  Also,  in  thinking  of  being  invited  to  join  the  Rosenberg  Foundation, 
it  was  really  the  first  taste  I  had  had  of  any  kind  of  organized 
philanthropy.  My  family  was  (I  think  I  used  this  before)  a  typical 
bourgeois  family,  if  we  ever  use  that  word  in  this  country.  They 
were  responsible,  decent  people,  but  neither  my  mother  nor  my  father 
had  ever  heard  of  such  a  thing,  or  thought  of  such  a  thing.   In 
those  days,  around  1915,  you  had  some  advanced  people  like 
Mrs.  Mclaughlin,  for  instance,  who  was  already  thinking  about 
philanthropy.   But  she,  after  all,  lived  in  a  city,  while  we  lived 
in  Stockton,  which  was  still  a  very  small  town. 

I  was  thinking  this  morning  that,  in  my  lifetime,  tremendous 
changes  have  taken  place  in  the  attitudes  of  people  toward  the  needs 
of  the  underprivileged,  as  we  now  call  them.  You  had  a  lot  of  private 
compassion  in  those  days.  For  instance,  my  mother  always  took  in  any 
tramp  (and  we  had  tramps  in  those  days)  who  came  to  the  back  door. 
Mother  always  gave  them  a  meal  on  the  back  porch  and  allowed  them  to 
do  something — if  they  wanted  to — around  the  garden  to  earn  it;  my 
father  would  have  responded  the  same  way  whenever  he  had  the  oppor 
tunity,  because  they  were  decent,  kind  people. 

But  the  development  of  public  compassion  is  the  thing  that  I 
think  has  been  the  great  development  of  this  century,  almost.   It 
really  began  with  the  Roosevelt  era — not  Teddy,  of  course,  but  FDR — 
because,  in  the  first  place,  a  great  many  people  got  hurt  in  that 
depression  who  had  thought  they  were  secure.  I  think  it  was  the 
first  time  that  a  lot  of  people  ever  realized  that  being  poor  or  out 
of  work  was  not  your  personal  fault — could  not  be  your  fault — although 


37 


Charles:  that  was  the  conventional  wisdom  of  the  time — that  it  was  always  the 
fault  of  this  lazy  fellow,  even  these  tramps  that  came  along  that  my 
mother  would  help.  You  never  did  get  into  a  discussion  about  it;  my 
parents  just  fed  him  and  did  what  was  necessary  out  of  kindness. 

Morris:   Are  you  thinking,  then,  that  the  governmental  statement  of  public 

compassion  through  some  of  Roosevelt's  legislation  stimulated  private 
thinking? 

Charles:  Yes.   I  "think  that  while  there  had  been  private  giving,  and  the 

foundations  had  begun  earlier — of  course,  the  Rosenberg  Foundation 
had  made  its  first  grants  in  1935 — they  were  hardly  organized. 

Morris:   That's  right;  it  was  a  very  beginning  thing. 

Charles:  Yes.   I  think  the  Roosevelt  legislation  stimulated  a  different  kind 
of  thinking,  which  still  isn't  in  the  bones  and  blood  of  everybody, 
but  is  much  more  widespread  than  ever  before,  I  think,  in  the  history 
of  the  world.   Certainly,  in  the  history  of  the  generations  that 
followed  the  Victorian  Age,  when  the  British — and  the  whole  business- 
industrial  revolution  is  really  what  I'm  thinking  of — people  really 
viewed  human  beings  (and  have,  I  guess,  since  the  beginning  of  the 
world)  as  a  tool  for  the  successful  person  to  use  to  make  his  own  way. 

I  think  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  could  be  an  example,  among 
others,  of  the  change  in  thinking  and  an  attempt,  in  an  organized  way, 
to  bring  it  about.   I  also  think  that  a  great  balance  is  acquired 
when  the  board  of  directors  of  such  an  institution  is  composed  of 
people  who  do  not  regularly  think  along  those  Victorian  lines  and  act 
on  concern  for  other  people — strangers.  Their  observation  of  what  is 
needed  will  be  a  little  different  and  sometimes  will  be  quite  unusual 
in  seeing  what  could  be  done  in  ways  that  certain  people,  professionally- 
trained  in  social  welfare,  hadn't  even  thought  of,  because  we  have 
always  thought  of  ourselves  as  an  innovative  foundation. 


Prestigious  Directors  for  a  New  Organization 


Charles:  Now,  I  did  want  to  say  something  about  Leslie  Ganyard — 
Morris:   Yes,  I  hoped  you  would. 

Charles:  Because  she  was  the  director  when  I  came  on.  And  also  I  started  to 
say  something  about  Charlie  Elkus;  and,  of  course,  there  was  Louise 
Rosenberg,  whose  last  name  I  have  forgotten — 

Morris:   Bransten. 


38 


Charles:  Bransten.   She  was  on,  although  I  never  saw  her  at  a  board  meeting. 
She  was  listed  as  one  of  the  board.  You  may  have  a  list  there  of 
who  the  others  were — 

Morris:   I  do.  Was  she  living  in  San  Francisco  at  that  time? 

Charles:   She  moved  to  New  York  sometime  along  the  way,  but  came  out  here 

occasionally,  because  I  remember,  oddly  enough,  being  invited  to  a 
party  at  her  house,  not  because  of  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  at  all, 
but  because  of  some  political  cause  that  she  was  supporting.  I  don't 
remember  how  I  happened  to  be  invited. 

In  those  days ,  it  was  quite  unusual  to  find  a  great  many  blacks 
at  the  party;  it  was  what  you  would  call  a  very  liberal  party.  There 
was  nothing  wrong  with  it  at  all,  except  that  in  those  days  it  was 
rather  unusual  to  have  a  mixture  of  races  and  people  of  all  kinds  at 
parties,  and  it  made  quite  an  impression  on  me. 

Morris:   How  did  she  strike  you  as  a  person? 

Charles:  Oh,  she  seemed  like  a  perfectly  nice,  liberal-minded  person.   I 

remember  somebody  was  playing  the  piano,  and  it  was  a  gay  evening. 
I  mean,  nothing  wrong  with  it — everybody  was  having  a  good  time.  And 
I  didn't  get  to  know  her  at  all. 

Morris:   Was  there  some  question  about  her  suitability  as  a  Rosenberg  board 
member? 

Charles:  This  was  'U8  and  '1+9  and  '50.   I  can't  remember  exactly  what  the 

state  of  the  country  was  in  searching  out  Communists  at  that  point, 
but  shortly  after  I  came  on  the  board  we  received  word  that  we  were 
going  to  be  investigated  by  the  California  un-American  activities 
committee.* 

Morris:   Hugh  Burns  was  the  chairman  of  it? 
Charles:   Yes,  that's  right. 

The  reason  was  partly  for  some  of  our  grants  in  the  Valley,  but 
also  because  they  discovered  Louise  Rosenberg's  name  on  the  board  of 
directors. 


"Joint  legislative  "Fact-finding  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities.' 


39 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles: 


So  the  board  had  a  very  serious  discussion  of  this,  and  Charlie  had 
a  solution  for  it  which  was,  we  felt,  the  proper  thing  to  do.  He 
proposed  that  he  go  visit  Louise  or  phone  her — I  don't  remember 
whether  he  did  it  by  a  visit — and  explain  to  her  that  she  never  had 
attended  a  board  meeting  for  many,  many  years,  and  also  frankly 
explain  to  her  that  it  was  awkward  for  us,  because  of  her  acquaintance 
with  people  who  were  thought  politically  questionable. 

We  felt  that  if  she  were  a  participating  member  of  our  board, 
that  might  have  been  something  else,  but  since  she  was  really  only 
there  for  sentimental  reasons  as  the  sole  surviving  Rosenberg  (she 
was  a  niece  of  Max's)™ 

She  objected,  Charlie  said,  a  little  bit,  when  he  later  reported. 
She  did  object,  but  she  ultimately  saw  that  it  was  the  right  thing  to 
do.   So  that  was  about  all  there  was  to  that.  We  wrote  off  some 
letters.  Our  board  was  simply  marvelous  about  it.   It  didn't  bother 
anybody,  really.  We  just  answered  anything  anybody  wanted  to  ask  us. 

Did  the  legislative  committee  take  any  action  toward  the  Foundation? 

Well,  not  about  us,  but  they  came  into  the  office.  They  didn't 
investigate  each  board  member.   I  am  sure  they  talked  to  whomever 


was  the  staff  person  at  the  time,  and  I 
Leslie  or — 


can't  remember  if  it  was 


If  it  was  'U8  or  'U9,  it  would  have  been  Leslie  Ganyard. 

Leslie.  We  were  all  in  agreement  that  we  would  answer  any  questions 
that  anybody  wanted  to  ask  us  in  an  absolutely  straightforward  way. 
We  didn't  try  to  deny  things  if  we  had  a  bad  press  in — I  don't  think 
we  ever  did  in  San  Francisco,  but  we  did  down  in  the  Valley;  some  of 
the  farm  journals  and  one  thing  or  another  were  making  invidious 
remarks  about  the  Foundation. 

We  did  what  I  think  is  what  you  have  to  do  in  those  instances. 
You  have  to  examine  what  you're  doing,  and  if  it's  creditable,  and 
you  believe  in  it,  then  you  have  to  continue  doing  it,  and  not  get 
in  any  peripheral  arguments,  because  that's  where  you  lose  everything, 
frankly.  That's  the  way  I've  learned,  from  some  of  those  experiences 
that  I've  been  involved  in. 

You  really  gain  very  little  by  getting  into  an  argument.   You 
can  hold  your  self-respect  if  you  simply  continue — examine  what 
you're  doing,  of  course,  and  then  do  what  you  believe  is  right.  Our 
policy  for  so  long  had  been  the  whole  problem  of  dealing  with 
minorities  and  people  underprivileged  in  our  society,  that  we  weren't 
going  to  stop  doing.  There  wasn't  a  single  person  on  the  board  who 
wanted  us  to.  We've  always  had  good  board — 


40 


Morris:   The  Burns  Committee,  as  such,  didn't  really  alarm  the  Foundation? 

Charles:  Well,  they  didn't  do  anything.   I  think  we  may  have  been  cited  in 

some  of  their  meetings — mentioned — and  I  think  we  got  listed  somewhere. 
maybe  as  a  subversive  organization.   I'm  not  sure.  We  really  have  to 
check  that  out  and  see;  maybe  Ruth  Chance  knows. 

But,  to  go  back  to  Charlie.  He  personally  chose  everyone  on  that 
board.  He  watched  the  League  of  Women  Voters  like  a  hawk.  When  he 
thought  there  was  somebody  promising,  which  was  where  I  fell  in — he 
came  and  invited  me  to  Join  the  board.  When  those  things  happen,  you 
never  realize  what  a  nice  honor  it  is  until  you've  had  a  chance  to 
taste  it  a  little  bit  and  see  what  you're  into. 

It  was  an  extremely  nice  thing  to  have  happen  and,  of  course,  the 
distinguished  composition  of  the  board  made  it  also  a  very  pleasant 
thing.  He  had  also  selected  Leslie  Ganyard  from  the  League  of  Women 
Voters,  to  be  the  first  executive  director. 

Morris:   Now,  that's  interesting — that  he  would  draw  a  board  member  and  a  staff 
person  from  the  same  organization. 

Charles:  Well,  she  was  the  staff  person  for  the  League.   At  the  time  he  chose 
her,  she  was  employed  as  the  League  staff.   You  know,  the  League  of 
Women  Voters  was  never  heavily  staffed,  by  any  means,  but  you  usually 
had  one  person,  and  that's  what  Leslie  was  doing  at  that  time. 

Morris:   For  the  state  office? 

Charles:   No,  I  think  it  was  for  the  San  Francisco  office.  Yes,  because  Leslie 
Ganyard  had  some  very  good  friends,  like  Maude  Button,  and  older 
people;  Mrs.  McLaughlin  knew  Leslie  quite  well,  had  known  her  well 
in  her  position  as — but  I  could  be  corrected  on  that. 

But  Charlie  chose  her,  and  she  was  the  perfect  person  for  what 
was  needed  for  the  Foundation  at  that  time,  because  Leslie  was  a  very 
pragmatic,  good-humored,  compassionate  person.  A  hard  worker,  who 
went  up  and  down  the  Valley  looking  for  things.  We  had  to  ask  people 
to  apply,  because  nobody  knew  who  we  were. 

Morris:   That,  really,  I  think  is  the  most  striking  fact,  looking  back  from 
the  seventies. 


Charles:  Yes.  It  really  is;  when  I  was  first  there  we  even  thought  of  a 

couple  of  devices.   In  fact,  I  think  it  was  more  than  several  years 
because  it  was  after  I  was  invited  onto  the  Stanford  Board  of 
Trustees  in  '5^. 


41 


Charles:  We  used  to  have  a  big  joke,  and  I  think  I  mentioned  this  earlier, 
about  how  Stanford  got  its  trustees  from  Rosenberg.   Shortly  after 
Dick  Guggenhime  came  on  the  Rosenberg  board  [1950],  he  was  put  on  the 
Stanford  board.  Then  Farmer  Fuller,  who  was  only  on  our  board  for  a 
year  or  two  [ 195^-1960]  was  elected  to  the  Stanford  board,  too.   Paul 
Edwards,  of  course,  was  president  of  the  board  of  trustees  at  Stanford. 

Morris :  At  the  same  time  he  was — 

Charles:  Yes,  I  think  so,  at  the  same  time. 

Morris:  Who  was  president  of  Stanford  at  that  time? 

Charles:  Probably  Wally  Sterling;  he  came  in  in  the  early  fifties. 

Morris:  How  did  Dr.  Sterling  come  to  think  so  highly  of  Rosenberg? 

Charles:  Well,  only  that  I  think  it  was  Just  something  that  he  knew  about,  and 
he  knew  we  had  a  lot  of  board  members  in  common  with  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation.   And  later,  when  Ruth  Chance  was  brought  in — when  did  she 
come  in? 

Morris:   1958. 

Charles:  Yes.  She  was  well-known  at  Stanford  because  she  had  been  working 

down  there  for  Carl  Spaeth.  Well,  Wally  has  always  felt  close  to  the 
Rosenberg  Foundation,  I  think. 

Now,  wait  a  minute.   I  had  another  train  of  thought  I  wanted  to 
follow. 

Morris:   Charlie  Elkus  had  picked  people  all  the  way  through  the — 

Charles:  He  hand-picked  them,  yes.  When  it  was  getting  to  be  time  for  a  new 

board  member,  Charlie,  in  the  end,  really  made  the  decision  as  to  who 
it  should  be.   There  never  was  any  disagreement  about  it;  he  selected 
very  distinguished  people.  And  for  an  infant  foundation,  he  had  the 
kind  of  people  on  there  who  made  it  strong,  because  of  their  own 
personal  status,  you  know. 

I  once  explained  to  a  friend  of  mine,  and  horrified  him  a  bit, 
I  think,  my  thesis  that  organizations  have  to  have  a  pretty  good 
conception  of  themselves  to  know  what  kind  of  board  members  they 
need  at  any  given  time.  For  instance,  if  you  were  going  on  the  board 
of  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  earlier  than  I  did,  much  earlier,  then 
you  needed  people  who  brought  distinction  in  themselves,  because  it 
was  so  new  that  it  helped  for  people  to  look  at  it  and  say:  Well, 
it  has  Ward  Mailliard  on  it,  and  Paul  Edwards,  the  provost  at  UC. 


42 


Morris:   I've  never  heard  of  Mr.  Mailliard  in  the  philanthropic  connection 
before.   I  wonder  how  Charlie  Elkus  talked  him  into  going  on — 

Charles:  Well,  because  Charlie,  I  think,  knew  him  as  an  individual  and 

respected  his  ability,  both  as  representing  old  San  Francisco  and  as 
a  successful  and  highly  respected  businessman.  He  Just  didn't  want 
his  boards  filled  up  with  do-gooders  who  weren't  known  for  looking 
cold-nosed — Ward  Mailliard  used  to  say  about  me  that  I  was  cold-nosed 
(and  that  was  a  great  compliment  in  his  mind)  because  I  examined  any 
requests  that  came  before  us  without  getting  sentimental  about  what 
the  request  was.   I  wanted  to  see  whether  it  was  financially  viable 
and  all  of  that  sort  of  thing,  and  I  would  question  them. 

I  had  a  very  interesting  experience  with  Ward  Mailliard,  who  was 
a  really  fine  man.   He  was  a  very  close  friend  of  Harold  McKinnon's, 
who  was  very  close  to  the  Catholic  church  here.   It  was  a  good  thing, 
of  course,  to  have  a  Catholic  on  that  board  because  being  Jewish 
money  and  having  several  Jewish  members  of  the  board  and  several 
Protestant  members,  we  might  have  tended  not  to  have  a  Catholic 
member  on  there;  but  we've  tried  consciously  to  continue  to  have  a 
member  of  each  group. 


Confronting  Controversy: 

KOEB 


The  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  and 


Charles:   One  day,  we  had  an  application  for  some  funds  for  a  Catholic  priest 
who  was  thought  to  be  connected  with  men  attacking,  in  the  press  and 
anywhere  else,  people  in  San  Francisco  of  some  distinction  as  possible 
Reds  or  Communists.   The  comments  were  very  outspoken,  and  without  any 
basis.   At  the  moment,  they  were  attacking  a  man  named  Brayton  Wilbur, 
of  whom  I  was  very  fond,  as  I  am  still  of  his  widow  and  his  family. 

So  at  the  board  meeting,  since  I  am  always  outspoken  (perhaps 
ought  to  be  less  so,  but  I  guess  I  can't  help  it  by  now),  I  said: 
This  man,  who's  applying  for  this  money,  is  the  same  man  who  has  been 
writing  these  articles  and  letters  in  the  newspapers  about  people. 
And  I  said:  A  very  good  example  is  Brayton  Wilbur. 

Brayton' s  business  was  import-export  from  Asia,  you  see.   These 
were  days  where  you  were  beginning — I've  forgotten  when  it  began. 

Morris:   There  was  the  loyalty  oath  trouble  at  the  University  of  California, 
which  came  to  a  head  in  1950  and  '51.  And  in  '52,  there  were  the 
Army-McCarthy  hearings. 


43 


Charles:   It  was  all  part  of  the  scene,  wasn't  it?  But  I  said:   I  can't  "bring 
myself  to  give  any  money  to  a  person  who  does  this  sort  of  thing 
habitually. 

So  that  afternoon,  I  had  a  phone  call  from  Ward  Mailliard,  and 
Ward  said  to  me:   Caroline,  would  you  come  over  to  my  house  for  a 
cocktail?  I'm  going  to  have  the  president  of  the  University  of  San 
Francisco  over  because  I  want  you  to  talk  to  him  about  what  you  were 
telling  us  today  at  the  board.   I  think  it's  very  important  that  he 
know  about  it. 

You  know,  that  was  really  a  marvelous  thing  for  him  to  do.  When 
I  got  over  to  Ward's,  here  was  Father — whose  name  I  don't  remember 
now,  but  the  president  of  the  University  of  San  Francisco  at  that  time. 
Ward  was  the  kind  of  a  man  who  knew  everybody.   He  was  really  a  lovely 
man;  he  was  unique. 

So  he  said  to  me:  Now,  you  tell  Father  about  this  man  and  what 
he's  been  doing  and  your  own  attitudes  toward  him. 

I  did,  and  Father  (whatever  his  name  was  at  that  time)  said  to 
me:  Mrs.  Charles,  I  want  to  tell  you  something.  We  have  a  good 
answer  for  our  church  member  who's  doing  this  sort  of  thing.   If  he's 
going  to  charge  guilt  by  association,  he's  going  to  have  to  include 
me,  because  Brayton  Wilbur  and  I  are  on  the  board  of  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Relations  together. 

Morris:   Was  the  Institute  submitting  this  proposal? 

Charles:  No.   No,  no.  The  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  was  a  group  that 
Ray  Lyman  Wilbur  had  started  in  order  to  further  relationships 
between  the  East — Asia — and  the  U.S.   It  became  a  target  for  attack 
as  to  its  complexion  and  was  really  terribly  denigrated. 

Morris :   Whether  or  not  it  was  Communist-connected? 

Charles:  Yes.  It  had  had  both  some  internal  problems  and  external  problems, 
but  when  it  was  started  it  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  boards 
in  San  Francisco.  Ray  Lyman  Wilbur  had  started  it,  and  this  Father 
had  a  list  of  the  early  board  members,  and  one  of  them  was  himself, 
from  the  Institute,  and  another  one  was  maybe  Ward;  I  don't  remember. 

Now,  whether  that  was  the  basis  for  Brayton  Wilbur  being 
attacked — or  maybe  it  was  the  World  Affairs  Council.   See,  the  World 
Affairs  Council  was  an  outgrowth  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations, 

Morris:   Ah,  I  wondered  about  that. 

Charles:   It  was  put  together  by  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  and  a  whole  group  shortly — and 
those  dates,  too,  we  have  to  get  hold  of. 


44 


Charles: 


Morris : 


Charles 


Morris: 
Charles 


But,  in  any  case,  you  know,  it  was  a  lovely  meeting,  and  I  m  afraid 
that  the  poor  Catholic  priest  who  had  submitted  this  request  was  not 
here  very  much  longer.   I  mean,  it  seemed  to  me  he  disappeared  from 
the  scene. 

That's  an  interesting  technique  that  Mr.  Mailliard  used— to  bring  _ 
together  people  who  were  concerned,  but  from  different  points  of  view, 
to  resolve  a  situation. 

Oh,  marvelous,  yes.   There  was  no  question  about  it:  he  knew  that  I 
had  the  facts  with  which  to  raise  the  issue  and  he  also  knew  the 
church  wouldn't  want  that. 

The  Catholic  church  has  been  such  a  marvelous  friend  to  me, 
personally,  and  I  think  they've  done  such  remarkable  things  in 
liberal  ways  in  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years,  you  know- 

The  Vorker  priest'  kind  of  approach? 

Yes.  Not  only  that,  but  the  integration— when  you  go  over  to  USF, 
where  I  have  an  appointment  at  four  o'clock  this  afternoon,  you  11 
find  that  the  racial  composition  of  their  student  body  is  probably 
more  responsive  to  affirmative  action  than  any  student  body  anywhei 
around  here.  Maybe  even  more  than  San  Francisco  State;  . 
about  it. 

And  also  the  priests  that  I  know,  who  have  been  kind  to  me  and 
asked  me  to  do  things  for  them,  are  men  of  very  concerned,  humanitanar 
outlook.  So  that  I  don't  mean  any  reflection  on  the  church  at  all, 
and  I  never  did,  because  this  particular  man  who  was  doing  this 
attacking  was  just  doing  it  on  his  own.  And  he  did  need  to  1 
silenced,  I  felt. 

Thinking  about  that,  I  was  thinking  about  my  tendency  (I've 
always  had  it,  and  I'm  sure  I  always  will)— if  something  has  to  be 
done  that  isn't  pleasant,  I  feel  that  I  had  better  do  it  because 
couldn't  ask  somebody  else  to  do  something  that  has  difficult  over 
tones  for  them.  I  felt  that,  in  my  own  self-esteem,  or  whatever  word 
we  might  want  to  use,  that  was  strong  enough  to  stand  whatever 
repercussions  there  might  be. 

Just  as  in  that  instance:  I  didn't  ask  somebody  else  to  raise 
my  points  about  this  Father  who  was  making  the  attack;  ..  felt  that  I 
had  to  do  it  myself.  Since  that  time,  I  have  quite  frequently,  . 
think,  stepped  out  of  line  to  defend  something,  and  had  people  say 
to  me:  Don't  do  that.   I  mean,  you'll  become  a  target— and  all  of 
this  sort  of  thing.  That  seems  to  inspire  me  to  do  it  even  more. 
I'm  not  a  martyr,  you  know,  because  that's  never  the  way  it  affects 
me  but  I  do  have  the  feeling  that  if  these  things  have  to  be  done, 
you've  got  to  be  as  willing  to  do  them  yourself,  as  to  persuade 
somebody  else  to  do  it. 


45 


Charles : 


Morris:   It  sounds  as  if  you  operate  on  the  theory  that  if  there  is  an 

unpleasant  situation,  it's  better  to  move  in  and  air  it  out  early, 
rather  than  let  it  ride  and  see  if  it'll  solve  itself. 

Yes.   I  think  that's  a  pretty  good  summary.  I  think  I  have  a  great 
deal  of  confidence  in  the  truth  prevailing,  but  you  can't  do  anything 
about  the  truth  prevailing  if  nobody  knows  what  it  is,  nor  can  you  do 
anything  about  it  if  it  isn't  out  in  the  open  sufficiently  for  people 
to  see  what  issues  are.  So  I  have  always  tried  to  do  that. 

It's  one  reason  why  I'm  involved  now  in  the  strike  at  KQED — of 
course,  I'd  have  to  be,  as  chairman  of  the  board.  I  realized  when  I 
first  took  over  that  we  were  trying  to  operate  the  station  with  a 
union  contract  in  relation  to  engineering  that  simply  wasn't  tenable, 
that  I  felt  the  previous  administration  had  agreed  to  because  they 
were  afraid  of  a  strike. 

Morris:   I've  heard  that  point. 

Charles:  Bill  Osterhaus,  for  whom  I  have  the  greatest  respect  as  manager,  and 
I  both  recognized  that  when  this  contract  came  up  for  renewal  we  were 
going  to  have  to  take  a  position.  And,  do  you  know,  the  thing  that 
pleases  me  is  that  there  hasn't  been  a  single  defection  from  the 
board.   Every  board  member  realizes  what  the  real  issue  is,  because 
the  major  part  of  the  issue  is  that  the  kind  of  a  contract  that  the 
engineers  want  will  make  it  impossible  for  us  to  hire  any  minorities 
for  six  or  eight  years  in  the  engineering  department.  And  we're 
under  pressure  from  the  federal  government  on  equal  opportunity;  and 
even  if  we  weren't,  we  believe  in  it,  because  we  can't  Just  say  that 
the  minorities  should  have  all  the  low  jobs,  and  that  everybody  else 
gets — so  that's  the  very  real  issue  that  we're  facing.  But,  in  any 
case,  I  always  tend  to  get  myself — and  I'm  glad  my  mother  isn't  alive 
to  shake  her  head  about  my  tendencies.   [Laughs] 


Balance  and  Variety  of  Attitudes 


Morris:  Going  back  to  Ward  Mailliard  a  minute,  I  wonder  if  his  knowledge  of 
the  political  scene — 'political'  in  the  sense  of  how  you  get  things 
done — was  an  aspect  of  his  effectiveness  as  a  Rosenberg  trustee. 

Charles:   Oh,  I  think  so.   It  wasn't  so  much  getting  things  done  as  being 

sophisticated  about  what  you  might  be  getting  into — if  you  had,  for 
instance,  an  issue  that  verged  on  the  political.  And  Charlie  Elkus 
was  extremely  knowledgeable  politically,  too,  in  a  very  sophisticated 
way. 


46 


Charles:  It  vasn't  politics  with  Ward,  so  much,  you  know.  His  son,  Bill,  of 
course,  has,  as  you  know  just  retired  as  congressman — 

Morris:   I  believe  Ward  Mailliard  was  a  leading  member  of  finance  committees 
for  various  candidates. 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.  That's  right.  He  would  function  politically  that _ way. 

That  is,  he  himself  would  not  be  in  office.  This  was  the  distinction 
I  was  trying  to  make,  yes.  But ,  oh,  yes ,  that's  right .  He  exerted  a 
great  influence  as  a  Republican. 

I  don't  know  whether  Charlie  was  a  Republican  or  not.  I  wouldn't 
be  surprised  if  perhaps  he  was  a  Democrat,  because  Charlie  would  have 
wanted  to  see  that  board  completely  balanced  as  to  its  attitudes. 

Morris:   Democrats  were  quite  rare — 

Charles:  They  were  rare,  and  I'm  not  sure  whether  Charlie  was  or  not,  and  we'd 
have  to  find  that  out.  Anyway,  it's  not  very  important.  But,  yes, 
Ward's  'sophistication  was  a  great  addition  to  that  board.  And  his 
ability  to  move  around  among  many  different  kinds  of  people  and  the 
respect  that  he  had,  everywhere—he  was  a  very  respected  businessman. 

It  was  a  really  interesting  mixture  with  Monroe  Deutsch's  academic 
background  and  his  concerns.  It  was  a  nice  mixture  to  have  them  all 
on  there  when  the  loyalty  oath  controversy  came  along.   It  gave  a 
point  of  observation  with  a  mixed  body  of  opinion.  That  is,  .  think 
all  of  us  would  have  been  in  sympathy  with  the  resistance  to  the  oath, 
and  certainly  supported  Deutsch's  position.  Nevertheless,  it  was 
being  discussed— here  we  were  in  a  little  group  of  eight  or^nine  of 
us— in  a  milieu  where  each  of  us  brought  some  different  attitudes 
toward  it.  It  certainly  was  a  learning  process  for  me. 

My  whole  life  has  been  a  learning  process.  And,  you  know,  one 
of  the  things  that  irritates  me  the  most  is  that  here  I  am  having  my 
sixty-ninth  birthday  tomorrow,  and  I'm  still  having  to  learn  and 
reject  things  that  I  have  thought  one  way  about  and  realize  that ^ some 
new  point  of  view  has  come  along  that  I'm  going  to  have  to  take  into 
consideration.  I  expect  as  long  as  I  live  that'll  be  true,  because 
I  am  convinced  that  your  personality  is  simply  the  result  of  attitudes 
toward  things.  That  is,  it  doesn't  stay  the  same  way,  because  you 
keep  having  to  face  different  things,  but  your  attitude  makes  you 
face  the  thing  you  have  to  face  in  a  similar  way. 


47 


6.   DEVELOPING  GRANTING  POLICIES 


Leslie  Ganyard,  19^8-1958 


Morris:   In  those  first  years  that  you  were  on  the  Rosenberg  board,  vhat  do 
you  recall  as  being  the  most  interesting  and  challenging  kinds  of 
program  proposals  for  funding? 

Charles:  Well,  Leslie  Ganyard,  of  course,  vas  roving  up  and  down  the  Valley, 
and  we  were  getting  very  interesting  projects.  She  was  certainly  an 
ideal  person  for  the  job  at  that  time,  because  people  always  felt  as 
if  they  could  talk  to  her.  She  was  a  very  sophisticated  kind  of  a 
person  in  a  way. 

She  had  been  a  typical  college  girl.   I  think  she  certainly 
belonged  to  Prytanean  and  may  have  been  president  of  it  at  one  time, 
and  was  very  active  on  the  campus.  Her  personality  was  the  result 
and  the  continuation  of  the  interests  an 'eager  college  person  would 
have,  you  know — she  became  enthusiastic  about  things. 

You  know,  one  of  the  hardest  things  that  an  executive  has  to  do 
in  any  organization,  but  certainly  in  a  foundation,  is  to  see  his  or 
her  favorite  projects  rejected  by  the  board,  and  this  is  very  painful. 
And  it  happens  every  board  meeting,  and  should  happen,  because  you 
really  don't  want  to  operate  an  executive-run  group.  Many  of  the 
very  large  foundations  are  almost  exclusively  operated  by  their  staff, 
because  it's  almost  impossible  for  the  boards  to  get  to  know  that  much 
about  anything.  But  we've  always  felt  at  the  Rosenberg  Foundation, 
and  taken  pride  in  the  fact ,  that  we  were  able  to  learn  about  the 
projects  which  we  were  asked  to  contribute  to,  to  be  able  to  make  a 
reasonable  decision  about  it. 

Morris:   In  those  early  days,  up  through  the  sixties,  the  board  was  able  to 
look  at  every  single  proposal  that  came  in? 


48 


Charles:  No,  no.  Never.  And  I  should  speak  about  that  aspect  of  the  way  we 
run  our  business.  Our  executive  director  screens  the  projects.  So 
it  is  true  that  you  could  have  missed  something.  Later  on,  I  think 
after  Ruth  Chance  came  in,  some  of  the  "board  suggested  that  we 
receive  a  summary  of  all  applications  at  the  same  time  that  we  got 
projects  which  had  "been  developed  for  our  reading — usually,  you  know, 
each  project  would  maybe  take  six  or  seven  pages  of  description, 
written  description,  on  it  by  the  executive — 

Morris:   Of  the  applicant  organization? 

Charles:  Oh,  no.  Well,  yes,  but  the  proposing  person  was  asked  to  submit 

everything  they  could  on  maybe  a  single  page.  There  would  have  been 
long  interviews  by  our  executive  director. 

We  had  a  policy,  which  became  tighter  as  time  went  on,  and  I 
think  correctly  so,  that  those  who  wanted  grants  from  Rosenberg 
should  not  approach  the  Foundation  through  the  board.  A  lot  of  people. 
of  course,  think  that's  a  shortcut  for  everything,  but  we  didn't  like 
that  then,  and  we  all  tried  to  avoid  it;  but  it  wasn't  completely 
adhered  to  until  later  on.  I  think  we've  done  better  with  that  later 
on,  after  we  were  developed. 

You  see,  all  those  years,  we  were  developing  policy,  trying  to 
figure  out  how  we  worked  and  how  we  thought  we  ought  to  work.  Of 
course,  with  Charlie's  absence,  it  changed.  It  became  more  of  a 
real  board,  in  the  sense  that  we  all  then  participated  in  policy-making 
We  mostly  bowed  to  Charlie's  ideas,  and  correctly  so.  He  was  really 
a  great  man. 

Morris:   You  mentioned  his  belief  that  the  board  should  have  a  strong  concept 
of  itself  and  what  it  wanted  to  do.  What  was  it  that  he  felt,  as  the 
leader  of  the  board — ? 

Charles:  That's  right.  It  was  his  belief  that  we  should  be  doing  innovative 

work,  probably  in  areas  that  were  not  conventional  areas,  and  that  we 
know  who  was  going  to  carry  out  the  work.  It  was  his  belief  that, 
in  the  end,  we  were  making  the  grant  to  that  person,  and  that  no 
matter  how  good  the  idea  was,  if  there  wasn't  somebody  who  was  going 
to  make  it  work,  it  wouldn't  work;  and,  of  course,  we've  had  that 
proved  many  times.  I  think  he  was  correct. 

However,  we  never  have  insisted,  and  never  did  in  those  days, 
that  the  person  be  named  to  us.  That  was  one  of  the  things  the 
executive  was  supposed  to  find  out:  did  the  group  know  who  was  going 
to  run  this  for  them,  and  if  so — 


Morris:   How  did  Leslie  find  out  where  to  go  up  and  down  the  Valley? 
ask  some  personal  acquaintances  there? 


Did  she 


Charles : 


Morris: 


49 


Well,  let  me  see  if  I  can  trace  it  down, 
any  memoirs  of  Leslie's. 


It's  too  bad  ve  don't  have 


Yes. 
you. 


I'm  trying  to  reconstruct  her  influence  by  asking  people  like 


Charles:  Yes.   Leslie  and  I  were  good  friends,  but  I  can't  say  that  I  ever  got 
right  down  to  brass  tacks  about  exactly  how  she  did  it.   I'm  sure  one 
thing  led  to  another.  We  would  examine  certain  fields.   For  instance, 
Charlie  was  deeply  interested  in  Karl  Holton  and  his  juvenile  Justice 
programs  thoughout  the  state.  So  she  would  follow  those.   I  don't 
know  where  the  chief  interest  in  the  migrants  came  from. 

Morris:   Florence  Wyckoff  is  a  name  that  crops  up — 

Charles:  Yes.  Florence  Wyckoff  could  well  have  been  a  contemporary  of  Leslie's 
at  UC.   I  think  it  might  be  a  good  plan  to  ask  Florence.*  She's  very 
bright.  She's  down  in  Watsonville;  in  fact,  I  may  have  her  number 
some  place.   She  could,  in  a  few  words,  give  us  some  information  about 
Leslie. 

Leslie  was  really  a  big  woman  on  campus,  as  they  used  to  say,  and 
she  had  many  acquaintances.   I  think  she  just  made  use  of  all  her 
connections  and  information,  once  she  ascertained  the  kind  of  thing 
that  Charlie  was  interested  in  the  Foundation  doing,  which  was 
innovation,  touching  fields  that  perhaps  hadn't  even  been  touched 
before,  making  little  grants  that  might  do  somebody  some  good. 


Health  Care  and  Rural  Communities 


Charles:  At  that  time,  and  still  when  I  left  the  Foundation,  we  had  for  some 
years  taken  the  position  that  we  wouldn't  do  medical  grants,  because 
we  felt  there  was  a  good  deal  of  money  available  for  such  projects. 
Well,  you  see,  everything  changed  when  all  these  federal  programs 
came  in,  with  a  lot  of  money  to  put  into  certain  aspects  of  things, 
such  as  health  and  medical  care — or  medical  research,  I  guess,  is 
what  I'd  better  use.  We  decided  that  we  not  only  shouldn't  be 
spending  our  money  that  way  because  there  was  money  available,  but 
also  we  didn't  have  the  knowledge  on  our  board  to  decide  whether  we 
should  be  doing — 


*See  interview  with  Mrs.  Vyckoff  in  this  series, 


50 


Charles 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Charles : 


Malcolm  Watts,  I  think,  was  the  first  doctor  who  ever  was  put  on  our 
board,  and  that  was  ten  years  ago,  probably  [1962-1971*]  •  Malcolm 
was  a  great  help  to  us.  He  was  an  ideal  personality — never  promoted 
his  own  interests,  but  he  would  be  able  to  select  some  little  grant 
for,  for  instance,  diabetic  children  or  something  of  that  sort  that 
wasn't  really  research,  because  we  wanted  to  stay  out  of  the  pure 
research  field  and  be  dealing  with  human  needs  and  how  we  could  do 
the  most  for  them. 

Health  care,  rather  than  basic  research. 

Well,  yes.   Or  even  identification.  For  instance,  there  was  a  great 
concern  about  valley  fever  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley;  I  don't  know 
whether  anybody  ever  identified,  really,  what  it  was.  When  I  got 
this  facial  paralysis,  which  scared  everybody  to  death,  including  me 
(I  didn't  know  what  the  future  was,  and  neither  did  my  doctors),  one 
of  the  things  they  wanted  to  try  to  find  out  was  whether  I  might  have 
valley  fever,  since  I  came  from  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  They  never 
found  out  what  it  was,  but  it  was  a  very  active  thing. 

I  don't  know  where  our  papers  are  on  that,  but  we  did  finance 
some  studies  of  valley  fever,  or  whatever  was  affecting  the  children 
of  the  migrants  there — 

That  was  the  connection  with  children  and  youth. 

That  was  the  connection,  yes.  We  were  also  interested  in  the  educatior 
and  improvement  of  those  migrant  children.  One  very  special  interest 
of  Charlie  Elkus's,  which  hardly  ever  came  in  to  the  Foundation,  was 
American  Indians.  When  we  made  grants  later  to  Indian  groups,  it  was 
not  because  they  were  Indians ,  but  because  of  our  old  interest  in 
trying  to  accept  applications  that  act  on  the  welfare  of  neglected 
areas,  with  a  great  deal  of  emphasis  on  our  work  down  in  the  Valley, 
but  also  in  urban  communities. 

It  seems  as  if  there  was  more  interest,  or  more  grants  made,  in  the 
Valley  and  mountain  communities  in  the  fifties  than  there  has  been 
in  more  recent  years. 


Oh,  that's  very  true,  yes. 


Urban  Pressures  and  Youth 


This  change  just  about  coincided  with  the  time  that  Ruth  Chance  came 
in  as  executive  director.  I  think  you  should  read,  if  you  haven't 
read  it,  the  introduction  to  last  year's  annual  report  [1973]  of  the 


51 


Charles:  Rosenberg  Foundation.*  Have  you  seen  that? 
Morris:   Yes. 

Charles:  The  beginning  of  it  was  a  collaboration  of  Ruth's  and  mine.  She  wrote 
it  and  I  edited  it.  Between  us,  we  finally  turned  it  into  what  we 
wanted.   It's  a  pretty  good  description  of  the  change  of  emphasis 
toward  concern  with  the  urban  scene,  which  was,  of  course,  moving 
very  rapidly.  When  you  really  take  a  look  at  it,  which  I  hadn't 
thought  about  before,  the  fact  that  more  and  more  young  people  were 
trying  to  come  to  the  -cities  and  leaving  the  country — this  has  been 
a  long,  traditional  transition  of  American  life.   I  shouldn't  even 
say  American  life;  I  guess  the  Romans  were  talking  about  it. 

Morris:   Really? 

Charles:   Oh,  yes.   There  are  some  marvelous  Latin  comments  on  why  people  want 

to  get  to  the  city.   I  can't  quote  them  for  you  now,  and  I  maybe  can't 
even  find  them,  but  it's  been  a  historic  way  for  young  people  to  move. 

We  began  to  feel,  under  Ruth's  direction — Ruth  brought  a  great 
many  things  to  our  attention  that  really  were  marvelous — that  the 
needs  of  these  people  crowded  into  cities,  not  only  kids  on  their  own, 
but  families  that  think  they're  coming  to  the  promised  land  and  really 
can't  even  find  a  way  to  live — that  we  should  put  more  and  more 
emphasis  on  that. 

Morris:   That  annual  report  points  out  that  the  roots  of  the  Foundation's 

interest  and  support  do  go  way  back  to  the  transient  youth  study  that 
was  commissioned  by  the  Governor's  Advisory  Committee  on  Children  and 
Youth  in  the  forties. 

Charles:   Oh,  yes.   That's  right.   One  of  the  most  amazing  things  that  we  have 
done  is  that  we  were  a  great  source  of  funds  for  these  state-wide 
studi  es . 

There  was  no  other  foundation  for  anybody  to  go  to  but  Rosenberg 
for  these  things.   The  other  foundations  were  primarily  proprietary 
in  the  sense  that  they  were  family-oriented  foundations;  they  really 
didn't  want  to  do  anything  unconventional.  The  San  Francisco 
Foundation  wasn't  organized  til  'U8;  we  helped  them  get  started,  you 
know.   I  always  tease  them  about  that  because  now,  of  course,  they've 
got  a  lot  more  money  than  we  do. 


*See  appendix,  p.  115. 


52 


Charles:  And  so,  when  people  wanted  to  make  studies  on  abortion  or  transient 
youth  or  any  of  the  things  that  nobody  really  wanted  to  talk  about 
very  much  in  the  19^0s,  they  would  come  to  us,  and  we  would  fund  it. 

Morris:   Did  the  board  discuss  at  all  the  implications  of  a  private  foundation 
making  grants  to  the  state  government? 

Charles:  Yes.  We  often  discussed  that.  We've  often  talked  about  making  grants 
to  the  city,  which  we  have  done.  Actually,  one  of  our  newest  policies 
was  that  we  were  probably  not  going  to  continue  funding,  say,  the 
education  establishment. 

va 

Charles:  We  thought  perhaps  some  of  the  more  innovative  ideas  might  be  going 

to  have  to  come  from  organizations  working  on  the  fringes  of  education, 
rather  than — 

Morris:   Outside  of  institutions? 

Charles:  Yes.   Outside  of  the  traditional  institutions,  and  so  we  put  money 
into  that. 


Invited  Applications  and  Obese  Budgets 


Charles:  One  thing  I  started  to  say  earlier  was  that  at  one  point — I  would 

imagine  it  was  in  the  middle  fifties — we  were  still  trying  to  invite 
the  kind  of  applications  that  we  wanted.  It  seems  incredible  now, 
because  we're  so  swamped. 

We  were  trying  to  think  of  ways  to  invite  applications  that  would 
be  creative  and  unusual,  and  we  decided  to  invite  each  of  the  colleges 
around  here  to  create  an  application  for  us  in  something  they  thought 
was  important.  I  believe  it  was  in  the  field  of  education,  and  we 
were  terribly  disappointed  in  that.   It  taught  us  a  good  lesson,  which 
is  that  you  can't  stimulate  creativity.  It  just  has  to  be  there 
before  it  can  come  to  you  in  any  kind  of  viable  form.  We  were  very 
disappointed.  We  decided  that  we  probably  would  not  try  that  again. 
As  it  turned  out,  we  really  didn't  need  to,  because  applications 
began  increasing  spontaneously. 

Morris:   There  were,  over  the  years,  it  seems  to  me,  a  number  of  different 
approaches  to  the  emotional  problems  of  youngsters. 

Charles :  Yes . 


53 


Morris:   Now,  was  this  something  that  emerged  with  the  years,  or  were  there 
people  on  the  board  who  felt  this  was  particularly  important? 

Charles:  No,  I  really  have  to  say  that  I  believe  that  when  we  leave  Charlie's 
era  (because  Charlie  had  ideas  of  his  own  about  where  he  thought  the 
emphasis  ought  to  be) — as  we  emerged  from  that  era,  we  became 
increasingly — I  don't  really  think  the  word  'dependent'  is  quite 
right,  although  it's  partly  right — dependent  on  our  staff  director  to 
bring  us  the  most  forward-looking  things  that  she  thought  (it  was  "she1 
since  it  would  apply  both  to  Leslie  and  Ruth)  were  where  we  ought  to 
be  putting  our  money,  our  hopes  of  developing  cures  for  things  or 
extending  good  ideas,  that  sort  of  thing. 

Ruth,  of  course,  has  put  a  tremendous  mark,  all  to  the  good,  on 
the  Foundation.  She's  a  little  different  type  of  person  than  Leslie 
Ganyard,  and  she  was  exactly  the  kind  of  person  that  we  needed.  Ruth 
is  an  intellectual  and  a  philosopher,  and  Leslie  Ganyard  was  a  more 
practical,  down-to-earth  person.  Both  of  them  are  extremely  compas 
sionate  and  at  the  same  time  hard-headed,  or  cold -nosed,  or  whatever 
we  want  to  call  it,  about  their  review  of  applications.  They  didn't 
let  anybody  come  in  with  phony  aspects  to  whatever  it  is.  They  Just 
got  everybody  right  down  to  brass  tacks.  Of  course,  Ruth  scares 
people  to  death,  always  has,  among  her  applicants.  They  have  to  go 
back  and  keep  thinning  out  their  desires  more  and  more,  and  that's 
good  exercise  for  them. 

Morris:   For  the  grantee. 
Charles :  For  the  grantee ,  yes . 

Morris:   Working  with  a  foundation  executive,  preliminary  to  submitting  a 
proposal,  sharpens  up  the  applicant's  perception? 

Charles:  Oh,  my,  yes.  And  also  sharpens  up  their  consciences  as  to  what  they 
really  need  to  do  their  Job,  and  how  they  can  do  it  in  the  most 
economical  and  effective  way.  Nobody's  trying  to  prevent  them  from 
being  effective,  but  you  get  a  lot  of  fat  in  a  lot  of  these  proposals. 
Ruth  Just  recognized  it  in  a  minute.  Most  of  the  good  foundations' 
executives  try  very  hard  to  do  that. 

I  was  speaking  to  a  group  Just  two  or  three  weeks  ago  about 
funding,  and  I  became  argumentative  with  one  young  woman  who  said: 
Well,  if  you  apply  to  the  federal  government,  you  want  to  make  it 
double  what  you  really  need. 

And  I  said:  Well,  in  my  view,  that  hurts  you  more  than  it  does 
anybody  else,  because  then  you  don't  force  yourself  to  ask  for 
exactly  what  you  know  you  need,  rather  than  gambling  on  it  being 
reduced  somewhere  along  the  line,  irrationally. 


Charles:  Perhaps  the  federal  government — we  know  that  these  grants  have  been, 
some  of  them,  very  loosely  given,  and  administered,  too.  We  all  have 
examples  of  that  sort  of  thing.  Of  course,  a  small  foundation  like 
ours  simply  cannot  afford  to  have  its  money  being  spent  lavishly  or 
without  due  consideration. 


1950s:   Interagency  Approach  to  Multi-Problem  Families 


Morris:   When  I  mentioned  emotionally  disturbed  children,  I  was  thinking  of 
that  1955-7  grant  in  San  Mateo  County,  done  by  Community  Research 
Associates.  It  was  an  interagency  approach  to  the  multi-problem 
family,  and  later  there  was  some  continuation  in  San  Francisco. 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.  That's  right. 

Morris:   I  believe  they  had  done  an  evaluation  study  of  the  Foundation;  their 
report  is  called  "New  Adventures  in  Foundation  Giving."* 

Charles:  Well,  they  might  have.  Within  the  Foundation,  that  San  Mateo  project 
was  a  very  controversial  thing.  The  only  thing  that  carried  it  was 
that  Charlie  was  still  alive;  do  you  know  when  he  died? 

Morris:   The  early  1960s,  because  he  was  still  president  when  Ruth  Chance  came 
to  the  Foundation. 

Charles:  Yes.  That's  exactly  right.  Well,  Charlie  became  very  enamored  of 
that  idea  and  Roy  Sorenson,  who  had  come  on  the  board — and  do  you 
have  the  date  when  Roy  came  on? 

Morris :   I  have  him  there  in  1951 • 

Charles:  Oh,  was  it  that  early?  That  surprises  me. 

Morris:   Wasn't  he  a  consultant  to  Community  Research  Associates? 

Charles:  Yes,  he  was.  That's  right.  It  all  tied  up  together,  because  Charlie 
and  Roy  sort  of  worked  out  the  details  of  putting  an  enormous  amount 
of  money  in  this  thing — for  us,  an  enormous  amount.  It  was  a  four- 
year  commitment — 

Morris:   Over  a  half  a  million  dollars. 


*"New  Adventures  in  Foundation  Giving,"  Community  Research  Associates 
Inc.,  Rosenberg  Foundation,  San  Francisco,  California,  1951. 


55 


Charles:   Yes,  exactly.   It  was  about  a  hundred  thousand  a  year,  if  not  a  little 
more.  This  was  not  what  the  "board  was  used  to,  and  we  were  quite 
uneasy  about  it.   I  think  Ruth  was  there,  though,  when  that  happened. 

Morris:   She  came  in  in  the  middle,  before  a  grant  was  made  for  a  modified 
version  of  the  plan  in  the  San  Francisco  Welfare  Department. 

Charles:  Well,  Leslie  Ganyard  was  uneasy  about  it,  too.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  really  only  confirmed  our  feeling  (I  use  the  word  collectively, 
of  the  Foundation  board)  that  our  most  effective  grants  were  small 
ones,  because  we  put  a  lot  of  money  into  this.  It  was  a  theory  about 
all — or  let's  say  ninety-five  percent — of  the  welfare  problems  coming 
from  twenty  or  fifteen  percent  of  the  people,  and  that  if  we  put 
enough  money  into  it,  this  Community  Research  Associates  group  could 
identify  who  these  families  were,  and  thereby  reduce — because  we  also 
knew  at  that  time  that  people,  if  it  was  a  whole  family,  were  apt  to 
go  to  a  number  of  different  places  to  get  help,  so  that  they  accumu 
lated — of  course ,  none  of  them  ever  accumulated  enough  to  do  themselves 
any  good.  But  that  was  an  unsatisfying  experience  for  all  of  us. 

Morris:   Was  it  primarily  the  high  cost  of  it  that  made  people  uneasy? 

Charles:  Well,  we  didn't  like  the  cost,  but  what  bothered  us  was  that  we 

couldn't  see  anything  coming  out  of  it.  A  lot  of  theory  and  research. 
We  are  used,  and  have  always  been  used,  to  measuring  our  grants  in 
the  concrete,  humanitarian  results  that  we  get,  and  also  the  infor 
mation  they  bring  to  make  it  possible  for  other  people  to  do  the  same 
thing  in  other  places. 

Lots  of  our  grants  have  resulted  in  publications,  little 
pamphlets,  that  tell  people  how  to  do  things;  they  can  be  used  all 
over  the  country.  I  think  that  we  valued  our  contribution  more  when 
it  was  that  kind  of  result,  than  we  did  in  a  major  scientific  study 
of  something.  We  Just  didn't  think  that  was  our  function,  and  we 
also  didn't  think  that  we  had  the  money  to  do  that  sort  of  thing. 

You  know,  that  took  so  much  of  what  we  had  to  grant  that  it  cut 
down  very  much  on  little  things  that  would  come  in.  Some  of  the  best 
grants  we  have  made  have  been  five  thousand,  ten  thousand  dollars  for 
some  thing  to  be  completed,  or  to  be  done  in  a  peripheral  way. 


Individuals  in  Need  Vs.  Broad  Social  Theory 


Morris:   In  other  reading  I  have  done,  Just  after  World  War  II  there  seems  to 
have  been  quite  a  lot  of  interest  in  the  business  community  in  taking 
a  scientific  look  at  planning  and  doing  long-range  studies.  Did  any 
of  the  businessmen  on  the  board  talk  about  this  point  and  were  they 
for  or  against  it? 


56 


Charles:  The  interesting  thing  to  me,  if  I  vere  to  make  a  generalization  about 
"businessmen  on  the  board,  would  be  that  their  primary  interests  vere 
almost  uniformly  in  the  effect  on  individuals  that  our  grants  would 
have,  not  in  philosophical  ways  of  going  at  it.  That  would  be  more 
the  social  worker's  idea,  you  see:  how  you  could  look  at  it  broadly. 
Businessmen  might  look  at  business  that  way,  but  the  satisfaction 
they  get,  and  got,  from  being  on  the  Rosenberg  board  was  being  able  to 
think  of  individuals  they  had  helped  and  that  that  method  could  be 
used  elsewhere;  that  would  be  satisfying. 

They  wouldn't  want  to  do  a  study,  I  don't  believe,  that  separated 
them  from  the  realities  of  human  distress  and  how  to  alleviate  it.  In 
a  way,  I  think  that  most  businessmen  that  I  know  in  most  of  my  organi 
zations  and  boards  infinitely  prefer  seeing  the  results  of  what  they 
do  right  there  before  them,  seeing  that  you've  helped  somebody.  And 
the  desire  to  do  it  is  not  inspired  by  big,  broad  efforts. 

Morris:   World  view  kind  of  thing. 

Charles:  Yes.  Or  even  community  views.  It's  inspired  by  the  fact  that  here's 
a  little  group  of  people  that  Just  can't  make  it.  If  something  we 
did  could  help  them,  and  not  be  Just  temporary  help,  but  give  them 
fundamental  help,  I  think  this  is  where  you  would  get  your  best 
support . 

Morris:   In  other  words,  in  general,  businessmen  respond  to  the  contrasts  in 

the  kinds  of  things  the  Foundation  is  doing,  the  way  they're  different 
from  the  way  a  business  runs. 

Charles:  Exactly.   I  think  so.  They  want — 

Morris:   There  isn't  much  feedback  between  business  and  philanthropy? 

Charles:  Yes.  I  would  make  that  statement  in  this  way:  what  they  respond  to 

is  the  personal  satisfaction  of  philanthropy.  Businessmen,  of  course, 
are  very  valuable  on  the  Rosenberg  board  because  they  have  high 
standards  of  fiscal  responsibility,  and  this  you  need;  we  need  to 
have  that  in  everything  we  do,  and  they're  very  good  at  that.  But 
they  don't  get  the  personal  satisfaction  from  that. 

I  think,  when  you're  working  in  philanthropy,  if  you  aren't 
getting  some  personal  satisfaction  from  what  you  do,  those  hours  are 
very  wasted,  because  what  else  do  you  get?  You  don't  get  anything 
else.  And  unless  you  can  say  with  some  pride  that  you  did  this,  that 
or  the  other  thing,  it's  not  worth  it  to  you. 

For  instance,  Ward  Mailliard  was  extremely  interested  in  the 
Audubon  Society  and  his  family  had  long-time  Marin  County  connections 
I  suspect  that  we  financed  a  number  of  bird  sanctuaries  and  retreats 
over  in  Marin  County.  I  can't  remember  exactly  when  or  which  ones 


57 


Charles:  they  were  (we'd  have  to  ask  Ruth  about  that),  "but  when  Ward  would  come 
in  with  one  of  his  Audubon  proposals ,  you  really  could  not  fit  it  into 
the  type  of  thing  we  thought  we  were  doing,  which  was  really  welfare, 
you  see.  And  that  is  in  the  most  limited  sense — the  sense  of  improving 
the  human  condition,  which,  of  course,  is  what  we  want  to  do.  But  we 
didn't  think  of  it  as  is  now  very  common,  in  the  ecological  way  of 
preserving  the  environment,  that  sort  of  thing. 

Morris:   Environmental  projects  as  such  are  still  out  of  Rosenberg's  territory? 

Charles:  Yes.  What  we  could  Justify  would  be,  for  instance,  if  the  Audubon 
Society  were  going  to  run  a  school  where  children  could  learn  more 
about  birds,  or  whatever  it  might  be. 

Morris:   I  think  of  the  blue  heron  ranch  up  there,  that  so  many  school  groups 
visit. 

Charles:  Well,  that's  right.  But  it  sort  of  snuck  in  under  the  rails,  you 
know.  It  really  wasn't  exactly  what  we  thought  we  were  for,  nor 
what  Charlie  thought;  but  Charlie  was  very  fond  of  Ward,  and  if  Ward 
came  in  with  this — and  he  knew  of  Ward's  great  affection  for  Audubon — 
we  would  all  sort  of  smile  when  that  came  along.  We  knew  we  were 
going  to  do  it,  although  we  might  have  a  hard  time  fitting  into  the 
idea  of  what  we  thought,  generally,  that  we  were  doing.  And,  of 
course,  we  should.  Those  are  all  part  of  the  human  condition — very 
necessary  to  a  well-rounded  human  life;  but  we  were  looking  at  it  a 
little  differently  then. 


Evaluating  Grant  Results 


Charles:  I  think  one  of  the  things  that  might  be  interesting  to  do — and  maybe 
before  you  and  I  have  our  next  session  I  ought  to  sit  down  with  Ruth 
and  talk  about  it — is  to  see  whether  our  deviations  from  policy  in 
Foundation  grants  have  actually  become  a  pattern.  We've  gone  into 
the  cultural  world  and  the  ecological  world,  and  all  of  these  other 
things  that  were  more  remote  to  what  we  thought  was  our  major 
preoccupation  in  those  early  days,  which  was  really  education  and 
welfare,  I  would  say. 

Now,  we  took  it  as  being  to  the  welfare  of  young  children — as 
you  know,  our  purpose  was  always  that  (and  I  don't  know  that  we  used 
the  word  'young')  children  and  youth — and  we've  stuck  with  that,  but 
our  emphasis  has  changed  from  time  to  time.  Some  of  the  things  that 
have  been  dragged  in  by  the  heels  to  fit  that  have  been  exceedingly 
worthwhile  things  to  do.  They  would  tell  you  something  if  we  would 
have  the  patience  to  look  at  them. 


58 


Charles:  For  instance,  we  had  this  proposition  from  a  young  fellow,  a  teacher, 
who  was,  I  presume,  at  the  end  of  his  wits  as  to  how  to  interest  a 
class  of  boys — maybe  boys  and  girls — Just  in  plain, old  , studying  and 
learning.  And  they  were  difficult  children.  He  didn't  know  what  to 
do.  I  don't  know  whether  he,  himself,  was  a  flyer  or  whether  he  had 
friends  over  in  the  little  flying  school  over  there.  Well,  he  worked 
out  a  scheme  whereby  these  children  who  had  done  well  in  their  work 
that  week  were  then  taken  on  a  plane  flight  every  Friday,  or  something 
of  the  sort.  Well,  of  course,  it  Just  worked  like  a  charm.  Everything 
they  did  was  attached,  I  presume,  as  best  they  could,  to  the  whole  idea 
of  flying  and  instruction. 

Well,  it  was  an  expensive  thing  for  us  to  do,  but  we  were  all  very 
taken  with  it  because  we  saw  that  it  gave  that  little  impulse — 

Morris:   The  carrot  rather  than  the  stick. 

Charles:  Yes.  I  think  maybe  one  of  the  things  we  ought  to  do  in  the  Foundation 
if  anybody  had  time,  would  be  to  try  to  analyze  some  of  these  off-beat 
things  that  we  did,  to  get  some  generalizations  that  might — 

Morris:   That's  a  fascinating  idea.  In  reading  through  your  annual  reports,  I 
have  wondered  what  happens  to  the  results ,  in  terms  of  the  Foundation 
cumulative  record  and  also  in  terms  of  disseminating  information  to 
others  working  in  the  same  grant  field. 

Charles:  We've  had  very  bad  luck  in  trying  to  assess  our  old  grants.  We've 
hired  people  to  do  it,  and  we've  tried  to  review  them,  and  it's  a 
very,  very  hard  thing  to  do.  A  great  deal  depends  on  the  person  who's 
doing  the  reviewing.  A  great  deal  depends  on  what  our  original 
intention  was,  and  if  that  didn't  work  out,  what  did  come  out  of  it. 

It  takes  some  imagination  to  analyze.  I  think,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  this  isn't  the  only  organization  that  I've  worked  in  where  it 
seems  impossible  to  make  any  assessment  of  whether  you've  done 
anything  good  or  not.  I  was  president  for  some  years  of  the  Edgewood 
orphanage,  which  is  not  an  orphanage,  but  actually  a  home  for  disturbe 
children. 

Morris:   That's  an  interesting  evolution,  too. 

Charles:  It  had  to  be,  because,  you  see,  there  aren't  many  orphans  any  more; 
what  you're  getting  are  single-parent  kids  and  that  sort  of  thing. 
We  tried  a  number  of  experiments  over  the  years,  after  we  quit  the 
traditional  one  of  simply  making  ourselves  available  to  the  government 
that  was  what  a  lot  of  these  orphanages  did  when  they  began  running 
out  of  orphans — they  made  themselves  available  to  other  agencies. 

Morris:   To  the  county  placement  services? 


59 


Charles:  Yes.  Then  the  county  wouldn't  pay  you  the  cost,  even  though  it  was 

less  than  their  own  costs  in  their  own  buildings.  They  would  set  the 
fees  by  legislative  action.  Well,  we  don't  want  to  get  into  all  that. 

Anyway,  at  Edgewood  we  did  our  level  best  to  evaluate  whether  a 
new  program  was  working  or  not.  I  was  talking  to  them  the  other  day, 
and  they  were  Just  shaking  their  heads  at  how  very  difficult  it  is. 
It  requires  actual  following  up  of  people,  and  I  don't  know  whether 
you  can  do  it  in  less  than  ten  or  fifteen  years,  you  know.  It  may  be 
that  you  won't  know  whether  you  did  any  good  if  you  don't — 

Morris:   It  could  be  that  you  might  be  able  to  posit, 'in  five  years  we  had  thus 
and  so  kind  of  results','  and  then  maybe — the  problem  always  is  the 
follow-up.  Who's  going  to  bring  it  up  ten  years  later? 

Charles:  And  who's  going  to  find  those  people?  The  kind  of  people  we're  talking 
about  there?  Probably  in  many  of  our  Rosenberg  projects  are  people 
who  are  not  easy  to  find.  They're  people  who  move  a  great  deal.   I 
really  think  we  could  learn  something  about  ourselves  that  would  be 
very  valuable  to  us  if  we  took  a  look  at  our  grants  over  the  years, 
not  so  much  to  see  how  much  glory  they  reflected  on  the  Foundation, 
but  to  see  whether  anything  really  innovative  had  developed  that  could 
be  made  use  of  elsewhere  that  was  overlooked  at  the  time.  I  don't 
think  we've  taken  a  look  in  quite  that  way. 

That's  a  very  hard  thing  to  do,  because  times  change,  and  the 
areas  where  society  needs  help  change,  and  you  have  to  meet  those 
needs  as  they  come  along.  It  may  be  that  what  you  did  twenty  years 
ago — it's  probably  quite  true — wouldn't  apply  at  the  present  time. 
So  maybe  it  would  be  a  lot  of  wasted  energy.  Maybe  you  just  have  to 
continue  moving  forward  in  as  creative  a  way  as  possible. 

Morris:   There's  also  the  theory  that  institutions  tend  to  get  into  a  rut,  and 
that  grants  for  innovative  projects  are  a  useful  way  of  keeping  the 
Juices  flowing,  as  it  were. 

Charles:  Yes. 

Morris:  Whether  or  not  they  add  anything  to  the  overall  knowledge — 

Charles:  To  the  social  scene? 

Morris:  Yes. 

Charles:  Well,   I  think  there's  something  in  that. 


60 


7.   SATISFACTIONS  AND  HAZARDS  OF  BOARD  MEMBERSHIP 


Responding  to  Individual  Proposals 


Charles:  I  think  you  cannot  get  away  from,  as  I  have  said  repeatedly,  the 

satisfactions  that  must  be  gained  for  your  "board  members ,  because  if 
they  aren't  getting  a  sense  of  contributing  to  the  velfare  of 
humanity  from  vhat  they  do,  there  is  absolutely  no  point  for  them  to 
do  it.  This  is  true  whether  you're  a  businessman,  or  Just  a  lay 
person  like  myself,  or  whatever  you  may  do. 

Morris:   Other  than  the  feeling  that  they  are  working  with  like-minded  and 
able  people  on  a  topic  of  common  interest? 

Charles:  Yes.  Of  course,  it's  very  satisfying  to  be  working  with  people  you 
like  and  whose  minds  you  like,  and  with  whom  you  like  to  exchange 
ideas;  but  it  has  to  be  deeper  than  that,  and  it  cannot  be,  I  don't 
think — and  maybe  there 'd  be  arguments  here  with  other  people — a  matter 
of  board  members'  individual  interests. 

We've  tried,  and  I've  mentioned  this  earlier,  to  see  that  the 
board  members  really  use  their  executive  director  as  the  filter  for 
the  things  to  come  for  consideration,  because  if  each  board  member 
becomes  a  transmission  agent  for  areas  in  which  he  or  she  is  intereste 
then  immediately  your  board  becomes  a  trade-off  situation.  So  that 
you  say:  I  will  support  so-and-so's  project  on  something  that  doesn't 
interest  me  at  all  if— you  know,  it's  the  old  logrolling  thing— they 
will  support  me. 

Now,  I've  always  admired  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  for  this. 
Despite  little  lapses  here  and  there — and  nobody  got  hurt  by  them  at 
all — it  never  became  a  pattern  for  us.  So  that  even  though  Ward 
Mailliard  would  introduce  the  Audubon  Society,  it  never  became  a 
feeling  of  the  board  that  each  one  of  us  would  then  come  in  with 
something  of  ours  and  expect  it  to  be — in  fact,  I  have  always  been 
absolutely  determined  that  I  myself  will  never  bring  in  anything  that 
would  benefit  anything  I  was  interested  in. 


61 


Charles:  If  they  wanted  to  come  to  Rosenberg  with  a  proposal,  they  had  to  come 
in  some  other  way.  They  would  have  to  come  through  Ruth  Chance's 
belief  that  this  was  something  the  Foundation  might  want  to  do,  and 
through  her  research.  So  that  I  would  never  appear  at  all.  And  I 
don't  mean  appear.  I  really  wouldn't  be  in  the  picture,  as  far  as  the 
reason  why  it's  coming  into  the  Rosenberg  Foundation. 

So,  when  people  call  me,  I  would  say  to  them:  It  will  hurt  you, 
not  help  you,  for  me  to  be  involved  in  this.  If  you  want  to  go  and 
see  Mrs.  Chance,  or  follow  the  procedure,  which  is  to  call  and  ask  if 
you  may  submit  something,  or  if  you  can  come  see  her  first,  or  whatever 
you  want  to  do,  you  do  it. 

I  refuse  to  have  my  special  interests  become — it's  so  dangerous 
to  do.  You  only  have  to  do  it  once  or  twice  (I  suppose  we  all  have 
to  experiment  with  these  things,  even  though  we  know  that  they  don't 
work.  Every  once  in  a  while,  you'll  weaken  and  say:  Well,  maybe,  all 
right)  and  it  becomes  to  me  a  very  serious  embarrassment. 

Morris:   Has  this  ever  been  a  problem  with  the  board  as  a  whole?  Among  the 
nine  of  you  there's  quite  a  collection  of  experience  and  membership 
on  various  boards  and  committees. 

Charles:  It's  really  worked  out,  I  think,  extremely  well.  I  think  that  the 

board  members  are  all  careful  about  that.  If  something  comes  in  that 
has  to  do  with  something  that  you're  on  the  board  of,  then  you  Just 
say:   I  won't  vote  on  this. 

Well,  it's  all  right  to  say  you  won't  vote,  but  we've  Just  had 
this  recent  discussion  in  the  city  government  here,  as  to  what 
special  interests  are,  and  we  don't  want  to  be  so  careful  about  it 
that,  as  the  mayor  says,  we'll  lose  all  of  our  most  valuable  people 
that  way.  You  don't  want  to  have  to  do  that;  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  true  that,  even  if  you  don't  vote,  you  can  be  a  very  powerful 
force  in  the  discussion.  You  really  have  to,  I  think,  almost  absent 
yourself  from  the  meeting  itself  to  see  that  it  gets  the  kind  of 
discussion  it  needs.  People  aren't  always  careful  about  that,  and  I 
think  they  should  be.  I  think  that  Rosenberg  has  come  out  extremely 
well  in  maintaining  a  sort  of  unified  situation  there,  of  a  whole 
board  trying  to  review  together  what  the  director  has  researched. 

New  board  members  sometimes  have  to  learn  not  to  do  that — not  to 
go  behind  the  director.  You'll  read  a  proposal,  and  then  you'll  think: 
Well,  I  know  something  about  that.  I'll  call  Joe  Doaks,  and  see  what 
he  has  to  say. 

There's  nothing  so  distressing  to  your  executive  director  as  to 


have  you  show  up  with  a  bit  of  information  that  she  didn't  have, 
always  been  very  careful  about  that . 


I've 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles : 


62 

What  I've  always  done — if  I  would  get  Ruth's  "book  of  applications  and 
I'd  come  on  one  that  I  felt  I  knew  a  little  more  about,  or  knew  some 
body  who  did,  then  I  would  call  Ruth  and  say  to  Ruth:  Have  you  checked 
with  so-and-so? 

She's  delighted  to  have  a  chance  to  do  that  without  being 


confronted  in  a  board  meeting  with  my  saying: 
Joe  Doaks,  and  he  told  me — . 


Well,  I  checked  with 


Morris: 

Charles : 
Morris : 


People  do  those  things.  I  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  advising 
youthful  members  of  different  organizations  that  they  really  should 
watch  themselves,  not  to  embarrass  the  staff  members,  whatever  it 
might  be.  Stanford  board  of  trustees  or  any  other  board.  It  simply 
doesn't  do  to  confront"  somebody  at  a  meeting  with  something  that  you 
could  have  taken  up  with  him  or  her  privately,  before. 

Now,  some  people  won't  respond  and  don't  realize  that  you're 
doing  them  a  big  favor  by  doing  that.  Sometimes  you  may  need  to 
bring  it  out  and  let  it  make  its  point.  But  you  shouldn't  be  doing 
it  constantly,  because  you'd  make  yourself  so  unpopular  on  the  board; 
it's  very  interesting  that  any  board  as  a  whole  resents  seeing  anybody 
embarrassed.  So  that  the  person  who  raises  the  embarrassing  issue  is 
the  one  who  become  unpopular,  not  the  person  who  was  going  to  be — 

Leaving  something  undone — ? 

Yes,  right.  And  you  have  to  be  very  careful  about  that  if  you're 
going  to  maintain  your  position  in  the  board  of  confidence  and 
thought fulness,  too.  After  all,  if  we're  all  involved  in  human — 

Good  manners  is — 

Yes,  exactly.  It  is  involved  in  our  human  contacts.  They've  got  to 
be  conducted  in  a  way  that  we  can  be  proud  of,  and  certainly  not  be 
ashamed  of,  anyway. 


Knowledge  of  Community  Networks 

How  do  you  define  the  area  in  which  board  members  can  bring  their 
knowledge  and  experience  with  various  community  agencies  or  social 
issues  into — 

The  Foundation? 
Yes. 


63 


Charles:  I  think  that's  a  highly  specialized  situation.  It  seems  to  me  that 

in  relation  to  myself  on  the  Foundation  "board,  the  most  valuable  thing 
that  I  would  bring  is  a  broad  experience  in  hov  community  organizations 
work  and  a  sense  of  when  they're  in  trouble,  or  when  they're  doing 
something  that  won't  work,  because  of  my  own  general  experience — not 
in  any  given  organization.  For  instance,  I  would  read  an  application 
with  a  proposed  organization  that,  from  my  experience,  I  thought 
wouldn't  work.  And  then  I  would  say  to  Ruth:  I'm  going  to  raise,  at 
the  board,  the  issue  of  how  this  thing  is  organized,  and  perhaps  you 
will  ask  them  some  questions,  as  to  whether  there  isn't  a  better  way 
to  do  this.  Or  something  of  that  sort. 

So  that  I  consider  that  my  specialized  knowledge  is  in  the  whole 
field  of  the  community  and  the  interrelationships,  both  of  organiza 
tions  with  each  other  and  internal  relationships  within  an  organization. 
You  realize  that  sometimes  an  application  may  embody  an  idea  which 
perhaps  ought  to  be  followed  through,  but  what  effect  is  this  going 
to  have  on  a  couple  of  other  organizations  that  think  they're  doing 
the  same  thing? 

You  see,  if  you  cut  yourself  off — if  you're  going  to  live  in  the 
organization  world,  then  you've  got  to  be  sure  that  you  live  in  it 
sufficiently  to  gain  the  sense  of  the  network  of  organizations  that 
comprise  our  modern  communities.  It's  as  if  you  had  a  lot  of  town 
meetings,  so  that  almost  any  organization  meeting  is  a  town  meeting, 
because  it  touches  on  other  aspects  of  the  community;  and  the  person 
who  has  some  experience  in  a  great  many  different  aspects  of  the 
community  is  going  to  be  helpful  to  the  overall  situation. 

Ruth  has  said  to  me:  You  have  the  mind  of  a  generalist ,  and 
those  people  are  hard  to  find.  Which  I  took  as  a  compliment,  because 
I  do  try  to  see  things  in  the  broad — I  don't  want  to  get  too  impassioned 
about  a  single  issue  or  a  single  organization — that's  why  I've  never 
been  a  one-organization  person.  There  are  some  very  valuable  people 
who  are  one-organization  people,  but  those  people  may  not  be  fitted 
at  all  to  be  on  a  board  of  a  foundation.  Because  of  the  way  their 
minds  work,  they  can't  escape  the  relationship  of  whatever  you  propose 
to  do  to  the  thing  they  are  principally  interested  in. 

I  think  that  during  the  time  that  I  was  on  the  Rosenberg  Founda 
tion  we  did  an  extremely  good  Job  of  having  people  on  the  board  who 
were,  in  the  best  sense  of  the  word,  what  I  might  call  'lay  generalists . ' 
They  didn't  come  out  of  any  of  the  kinds  of  things  that  we've  served, 
although  they  would  serve  on  a  board  here  and  there  and  have  the 
experience.  They  had  enough  experience  that  they  weren't  wed  to 
relating  everything  to  the  one  thing  that  to  them  was  important.  We 
need  those  people,  but  there  are  certain  places  they  don't  belong. 


64 


Morris:   Let  me  ask  you  for  a  'for  instance'  on  this.  Going  back  to  Roy 

Sorenson:  he  vas  a  consultant  to  Community  Research  Associates  on 
this  series  of  projects  on  the  mult i -problem  family,  which  began  in 
the  late  forties.  And  then,  in  1951,  he  became  a  member  of  the 
Rosenberg  board.  I  guess  that  would  still  be  Charlie  Elkus — ? 

Charles:   Oh,  Charlie  adored  Roy,  Just  adored  Roy. 

Morris:   Did  that  cause  any  problems,  either  with  the  continuing  of  the  grants 
or  with  Roy? 

Charles:  Yes,  I  believe  so.  I  -have  always  worried  about  whether  or  not  social 
workers  belong  on  the  board  of  a  foundation  like  Rosenberg.  I'll  make 
that  as  a  generalization  because,  right  now,  I  believe  there  are 
several  people  in  that  category  on  the  board.  For  instance,  there  is 
a  social  worker,  and  he's  very  good.  I  haven't  worked  with  him  long 
enough  to  know  if  he  can  restrain  his  impulses ,  because  one  of  the 
impulses  that  social  workers  have  is  a  conviction  that  the  lay  people 
don't  know  anything  about  this  field. 

That  was  one  of  the  things  that  made  Roy  very  difficult  for  me  tc 
work  with.  I  liked  Roy.  We  were  friends,  but  I  felt  myself  being 
constantly  manipulated  into  a  decision  that  I  was  not  going  to  make, 
and  I  would  ultimately  get  my  back  up  and  not  do  it.  I  didn't  like 
that  feeling.  I  would  say  that  it  would  have  occurred  to  no  other 
board  member  to  try  to  get  the  other  fellow  to  change;  he  wouldn't 
have  felt  that  he  had  that  much  knowledge,  but  the  people  whose 
professions  are  in  the  fields  that  we  work  in  tend  to  believe  that 
they  know  more  than  anybody  else  does  about  the  whole  field,  and  where 
this  emphasis  ought  to  be  and  that — 

[Phone  interruption] 


Time  for  a  Woman  President:   196l 


Morris:   Did  this  continue  to  be  a  problem  when  Mr.  Sorenson  was  president  of 
the  board,  from  1957  to  196l? 

Charles:  Yes,  because — well,  then,  I'll  have  to  tell  you  that  little  story, 
too.  There  were  nine  on  the  board  and  they  revolved  the  presidency 
around  among  the  men,  as  if  the  women  were  not  there. 

Morris:   Oh,  dear. 

Charles:  So,  after  about  ten  years,  when  I  saw  that  this  was  what  they  were 
doing,  I  began  getting  myself  really  annoyed  about  it  because  there 
couldn't  be  a  more  competent  person  than  Ellie  Sloss.  She's  on  the 


65 


Charles:  Mills  board  of  trustes — president  of  their  alumni  association.   She's 
a  person  of  great  competence,  and  the  idea  that  without  even  saying 
anything  to  anybody  they  Just — 

So  I  called  up  Dick  Guggenhime;  I'm  a  very  good  friend  of  Dick's. 
He's  a  very  fine  man,  and  I'm  extremely  fond  of  him.  They  were  casting 
about  for  a  president,  somebody  who  hadn't  already  been  president, 
because  we  didn't  really  have  any  terms.  I  must  tell  you  about  that, 
too,  because  we  Just  followed  Charlie's  pattern.  We  Just  eliminated 
terms. 

We'd  decided  we'd  have  three-year  terms  on  the  board.   Let  me 
say  that,  because  it  involves  the  presidency.   I  think  Charlie 
continued  being  president  during  the  entire  time  that  he  was  there, 
almost.  We  would  come  to  a  board  meeting  and  Charlie  would  say:  Well, 
I  see  that  three  people's  terms  expire  this  year  (on  this  three-year 
term  business) — now,  is  this  the  way  we  really  want  to  run  this 
Foundation? 

He'd  say:  Nobody  knows  enough  to  be  retired  off  this  board. 
Morris:   In  Just  three  years? 

Charles:  In  three  years.  Or,  we  may  have  attempted  to  insert  'retiring  after 
two  terms'  or  something  like  that.  Well,  we  eliminated  all  of  that, 
and  it  always  used  to  make  me  laugh,  because  every  year  we'd  say:  Well, 
so-and-so's  term's  coming  up.  We  can't  have  that. 

So  we  Just  would  rescind  all  the  things  in  the  by-laws  that  had 
anything  to  do  with  people's  terms.   So  that  meant  that  pretty  soon 
we  would  get — I  don't  have  the  dates  when  all  this  happened.  You  have 
to  look  back  and  see  when  Ellie  Sloss  was  president,  because  that  will 
tell  you. 

Morris:   She  was  president  from  196l  to  1963. 

Charles:  In  the  early  sixties.  Well,  that  was  when  I  reached  the  end  of  my 

patience  with  this  thing.  Because  everybody  on  the  board  had  already 
been  president  about  then,  I  guess.   Nobody  ever  had  to  get  off.  And 
so  they  didn't  know  exactly  who  to  make  president.  Dick  Guggenhime 
was  the  chairman  of  the  nominating  committee.   So  I  called  Dick  and  I 
said:  Dick,  you  have  the  perfect  candidate  for  president — Ellie  Sloss. 
I  want  to  say  that  I  think  the  way  you've  been  conducting  this  board, 
just  simply  revolving  that  presidency  around  with  no  consideration  for 
a  woman  is — I  can't  understand  it. 

Well,  Dick  and  I  had  quite  a  hilarious  exchange,  and  he  said  to 
me:  Then  you  will  want  to  be  president,  too. 


66 


Charles:     And  I  said:     We're  not  talking  about  that  right  now  (because  Dick  and 
I  are  like  brother  and  sister;  we're  really  friends).     And  I  said: 
All  I'm  talking  about  is  Ellie  Sloss,   and  she's  qualified. 

Well,  I  finally  got  to  them  and  they  nominated  Ellie  for  president 
and,  of  course,  she  was  a  fine  president.  Well,  then  later  they  went 
through  some  of  the  same  thing  in  regard  to  my  presidency,  but  Ruth 
was  the  person  who  really  worked  on  that. 

Morris:   I  would  have  thought  that  at  the  level  of  the  people  on  the  board 
there  would  be  less  of  this  business  of  'a  woman's  role  is  in  the 


Charles: 


home1  than  there  is,  maybe,  in  society  in  general, 
observation? 


Is  that  a  valid 


No.  I  consider  that  men  are  men  wherever  they're  operating.  They 
operate  in  exactly  the  same  way.  There  are  certain  things  they  think 
women  can't  do,  and  you  have  to  prove  over  and  over  again  that  you  can 
do  these  things.  You  have  to  do  them  better  than  anybody  else  does, 
or  they  don't  really  do  it.  I  don't  think  that  our  Foundation  board 
was  very  much  different  from  men  in  society  in  general. 

Charlie  was  a  great  supporter  of  women  being  participants  in  the 
board.  Now,  the  question  of  a  woman  being  president  never  arose  while 
he  was  alive.  I  would  have  been  interested  as  to  what  his  theory 
about  that  would  have  been,  because  I  got  into  a  little  trouble  with 
Charlie  once;  and,  fortunately,  as  I  think  I've  said  to  you  before,  I 
always  have  one  part  of  me  that  can  stand  aside  and  see  what's 
happening.   And  so  I  can  be  amused  by  things  that  might  cause  a  sort 
of  traumatic  experience  [laughs]. 


Communication  and  Personal  Relations 


Charles:  Leslie  Ganyard — as  I  said  to  you  earlier,  the  executive  becomes  very 

upset  when  what  they  recommend  is  rejected,  and  they  have  to  learn  how 
to  conceal  it.  It's  more  painful  with  some  things  than  others,  and  it 
Just  depends  on  whether  their  heart  has  become  really  seriously 
involved  with  something  that  they're  proposing. 

So  in  this  case  we  evidently  had  had  a  little  spell  of  rejecting 
some  of  Leslie's  things.  And  one  day  she  called  me  up  in  tears  (or 


perhaps  we  were  together)  and  she  said:   I  Just  can't  stand  this. 
Just  having  all  my  favorite  things  rejected. 


I'm 


I  said:  Well,  why  don't  you  stop  making  a  recommendation?  Why 
don't  you  Just  say,  'these  are  the  points  in  favor,  and  these  are  the 
points  against,  and  the  board  should  make  up  its  own  mind. '   I  said  I 


67 


Charles:  thought  that  would  ease  her  feelings — because  it  had  a  personal  element 
in  it,  her  feelings  did,  that  they  were  rejecting  her  as  well  as  what 
she  was  recommending. 

So  she  thought  that  was  a  good  idea.   So  she  brings  over  the 
agenda  to  Charlie,  who  went  over  everything.   He  never  allowed  it  to 
be  sent  out  till  he  had  reviewed  it.  We  don't  do  that  anymore;  the 
president  doesn't  see  the  agenda  any  earlier  than  anybody  else  does, 
which  I  think  is  correct. 

But  at  that  time  he  reviewed  it.   So  he  said  to  Leslie,  as  she 
reported  to  me:  What  does  this  mean,  you're  not  making  a  recommenda 
tion? 

She  said:  Well,  Caroline  suggested  that  I  not  do  it,  because  I've 
been  bothered,  by  it  not  being  accepted. 

And  he  said:  I'll  just  speak  to  Caroline  Charles. 

So  he  called  me  up  and  he  Just  said:  You  Just  stay  out  of  this. 
I  don't  wish  you  to  become — 

Well,  he  had  no  business  saying  that  to  me,  as  a  board  member. 
And,  after  all,  every  board  member  can  have  whatever  conversation  he 
or  she  wants  with  the  executive.   In  my  view,  this  is  the  health  of 
the  organization,  when  it  has  lines  of  communication  coining  from 
everybody  in  it.   But  I  was  so  amused  by  Charlie's  indignation,  that 
I  said:  Absolutely,  Charlie.  Whatever  you  want. 

One  thing  in  my  organizational  life  is  that  I'm  not  going  to 
argue  or  create  issues  with  people  whom  I  generally  admire,  whom  I 
think  have  pretty  good  judgment  in  everything  that  they  do,  because 
all  I'd  do  is  just  cause  an  upheaval  over  what  is  really  a  personal 
matter.   I  didn't  see  any  reason  to  say  to  Charlie,  for  instance:  You 
have  no  business  telling  me  what  I  can  or  can't  do. 

I  never  do  that  sort  of  thing;  I  try  to  use  what  intelligence  I 
have  in  dealing  with  these  problems  that  seem  to  get  to  be  a  little 
personal. 

So  I  Just  said:  Charlie,  that's  fine.   I'm  perfectly  willing  to 
do  that . 

Leslie  and  I  talked  about  it  and  I  said:   Leslie,  Charlie  employed 
you,  and  you  go  right  ahead  and  do  this. 

And  this  is  only  a  technicality,  because  it  didn't  change  the 
content  of  what  she  did,  at  all.   It  only  meant  that  she  again  exposed 
herself  to  rejection — and  she  got  rejected  plenty  of  times  from  then 
on,  too.  The  board  has  always  been  very  independent,  and  sometimes 


68 


Charles:   some  little  thing  vill  come  up  in  an  application  that  strikes  somebody 
as  revealing  something  that  perhaps  isn't  quite  what  we  want  to  give 
the  money  to,  or  something  like  that.  We  have  tried,  and  we  do,  . 
would  think,  almost  always  have  a  pretty  unanimous  vote  on  things. 
Whether  this  is  changing  now,  I  don't  know.  But  that's  what  we  tried 
to  do—to  talk  out  our  questions,  and  sometimes  put  it  over  for  more 
information. 

But,  anyway,  Charlie  was  of  his  generation  in  regard  to  women. 
He  thought  that  we  ought  to  be  on  there,  and  we  ought  to  be  putting 
our  money  and  our  minds  into  making  decisions,  but  I  doubt  very  much 
if  he  would  have  thought  a  woman  ought  to  be  president.  I  don't  know 
that,  for  sure. 

Now,  he  had  many  women  friends  of  great  ability  in  San  Francisco. 
Some  of  then,  I  thought,  were  not  of  as  great  ability  as  Charlie _ 
thought,  but  he  thought  they  should  be  on  boards  and  had  a  contribution 
to  make. 

I  think  that  perhaps  women  are  more  likely  to  speak  up  in  an 
organization— on  a  board— when  they  think  it's  important  to  consider 
another  way  of  doing  things. 

H 

Morris:   You  felt  that  none  of  the  men  would  be  willing  to  speak  up? 

Charles:  They  wouldn't  have  started,  but  they  were  agreeable  once  it  had  got 
started,  by  me  in  the  first  instance,  and  by  Ruth  Chance.  You  see, 
Ruth's  style  of  working  was  really  quite  different  from  Leslie 
Ganyard's.   Leslie  had  been  brought  in  the  Foundation  as  staff  by  a 
very  strong  person,  namely  Charlie  Elkus.  And  she  worked  for  Charlie. 

Now,  it  wasn't  that  she  asked  that  it  be  that  way,  but  she  knew^ 
the  realities,  and  the  realities  were  that  she  was  working  for  Charlie 
I  can't  think  of  a  person  who  I  know— he  would  be  a  benevolent  despot 
in  that  situation. 

Morris:   It  sounds  like  it,  but  like  a  very  able  one. 

Charles:  Very— he  had  wide  knowledge  and  he  made  the  Foundation  what  it  is.  He 
and  Leslie  together.  Leslie  was  the  perfect  arm  for  him  to  go  out  anc 
investigate  around  the  countryside  and  so  forth. 


69 


Responsibility  to  Staff:  Leslie  Ganyard  Retires 


Morris:   How  did  it  happen  that  the  "board  decided  to  find  a  new  director? 

Charles:  Because  we  had  passed,  some  years  before,  a  rule  that  sixty-five 

would  be  the  retirement  age.   I  knew  that  this  was  going  to  be  very 
painful  for  Leslie,  because  you  don't  feel  like  sixty-five.  I  don't 
feel  like  sixty-nine.  You  Just  don't  feel  that  way. 

I  decided  that  my  function,  at  least  one  function,  was  to  stay 
close  to  the  executive  when  it  was  time  for  her  to  retire  and  try  to 
help  her  through  this  period  without  yielding  on  the  fact  that  it  had 
to  be  done;  because  the  suggestion  you'd  always  get  from  anybody  in 
that  position  is:  Well,  I  could  stay  on  another  year  or  two  years. 

Well,  the  minute  you  do  that — I  think  it  has  to  be  done.  I, 
myself,  really  believe  so.  Now,  I'm  lucky,  because  the  retirement 
age  at  Stanford  is  seventy,  which  will  mean  that  next  year  will  be 
my  retirement  from  the  board  of  trustees.  And,  you  know,  you  don't 
feel  any  different,  but  you  just  have  to — I'm  a  realist,  so  that  it 
won't  make  any  difference  as  far  as  I'm  concerned;  I  must  capitulate 
to  that  rule. 

Ruth  and  Leslie  are  both  realists,  of  course,  but  Leslie — oh,  my, 
she  was  very  upset  by  having  to  retire.   She  felt  that  it  was  a 
reflection  on  her  by  the  board,  and  I  kept  telling  her — I  just  felt 
that  she  ought  to  have  somebody  to  talk  to  about  all  this,  and  so 
she'd  pour  out  to  me  how  she  felt.  And  I  would  Just  say:  But,  Leslie, 
it  just  has  to  be.  These  rules  are  good  for  everybody. 

Morris:   With  all  her  experience  and  acquaintances,  did  she  not  use  those 
skills  in  some  other  way? 

Charles:  Well,  there's  hardly  any  way  to  do  it.  I  mean,  Ruth  is  up  against 
the  same  thing  right  now.  There's  no  organized  way  to  make  use  of 
all  the  abilities  that  you've  developed. 

For  instance,  John  May  retired  and  he  was  immediately  invited  by 
Bill  Hewlett  to  reorganize  his  family  foundation. 

Morris:   Which  is,  in  a  way,  about  where  the  San  Francisco  Foundation  was 
twenty-five  years  ago. 

Charles:   That's  right.  When  it  started.   I  have  Just  hoped  that  a  similar 
kind  of  thing  would  be  presented  to  Ruth. 

But  we  were  talking  about  Leslie's  retirement.  The  first  thing 
that  I  did  was  to  tell  the  board  that  they  had  to  have  some  kind  of  a 
party  for  Leslie  Ganyard.  They  didn't  agree  at  all,  and  Charlie  and 


70 


Charles:   I  had  a  great  to-do  over  that;  but  I  said:   It  is  absolutely  essential, 
You  will  regret  it  very  much  if  you  don't  do  it.   She's  been  here  too 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles: 


long;  she's  given  too  much.  We  don't  have  to  have  a  big  party. 
You  thought  there  should  be  a  ceremonial — 

I  thought  there  had  to  be  a  ceremonial  something,  and  we  had  to  give 
her  a  little  present.  Well,  the  men  finally  got  overruled  by  me  and 
we  had  a  nice  dinner  at  the  St.  Francis  and  gave  her  a  silver  dish  or 
something — which  the  board  very  carefully  paid  for,  because  we  were 
careful  not  to  use  Foundation  funds  for  that  sort  of  thing.  But  I 
knew  that  it  would  just  wound  Leslie  Ganyard  to  the  quick  if  she  were 
not  able  to  say  to  her  friends  that  something  had  been  done  to 
recognize  her. 

But,  anyway,  the  thing  that's  so  sad,  you  see,  is  that  she  became 
pretty  disabled.  She  had  arthritis  anyway,  and  the  minute  she  lost 
the  compulsion  to  be  down  there  every  day  working,  you  could  see  her 
getting  more  and  more  crippled  up.  I've  seen  this  happen  frequently. 
It's  very  sad. 

That  really  is. 

She  had  a  brother  with  whom  she  lived.  Her  husband  had  died  first, 
and  then  her  brother,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  this  all  happened  quite 
quickly . 

Was  she  a  widow  when  she  was  employed? 

No,  she  wasn't.  And  I  think  that  probably  her  husband  was  still  alive 
when  she  left.  I'm  not  positive  about  that,  but  I've  forgotten 
whether  he  had  some  small  business  or  something.   Leslie  was  the  real 
wage-earner  in  the  family.  Of  course,  the  salaries  we  paid  in  those 
days  were  Just  ridiculous  and  the  retirement  pay  was  just  incredibly 
low. 


71 


8.   THE  FOUNDATION  AND' THE  COMMUNITY:   1958-1971* 


Ruth  Chance 


Charles:  We  finally  got  the  board  to  make  some  kind  of  cost-of -living  raise — 
I  vas  determined  that  Ruth  should  not  be  treated  that  vay.  So,  again, 
I  started  this  great  battle  at  this  retirement.  This  time,  Ruth  got 
involved  in  the  battle,  because  she  made  up  her  mind  she  vasn't  going 
to  have  anything  done  and  I  made  up  my  mind  she  was . 

Morris:   That's  marvelous.  Somebody  who  doesn't  like  having  things  done  for 
them  in  contact  with  someone  who  likes  doing  things  for  people. 

Charles:  Well,  it's  not  quite  as  simple  as  that.  There's  a  certain  pride 

involved  in  this  for  the  Foundation.  If  you  let  a  person  go,  who  has 
done  such  things  as  Ruth  Chance  has  for  the  community,  without  any 
recognition  at  all — it  was  my  belief  that  it  should  be  something  done 
for  all  the  people  to  whom  she'd  given  grants,  not  a  social  occasion. 
So  we  had  the  party  that  way. 

You  know,  organizations  have  their  noblesse  oblige.  That's  what 
I'm  really  thinking  of.  I  just  don't  think  that  an  organization  like 
the  Rosenberg — and  what  it  had  come  to  be,  really,  under  Ruth's 
direction — could  not  say  thank  you.  We  left  one  phase  behind  when 
Ruth  came  in — and  that  was  our  sort  of  small,  country  phase — and 
really  developed  into  something  that  was  then  known  all  over  the 
country.   I  mean,  everybody  knew  the  kinds  of  things  Rosenberg  did, 
the  style  with  which  they  did  them,  and  the  capacities  of  Ruth.  It 
would  have  been  a  very  awkward  thing  to  have  no  expression  of  our 
appreciation. 

I  think  Ruth  knows  that,  although  we  had  some  strong  arguments 
over  the  party  at  the  time.  Our  friendship  is  strong  enough  that  it 
was  untouched  by  our  disagreements. 


72 


Morris:   Would  you  have  been  involved  in  the  selection  process  by  which  Ruth 
joined  the  Foundation? 

Charles:  I  wasn't  involved  in  the  selection  process.  I  think  Charlie  had 

appointed  a  selection  committee,  but  he,  again,  made  the  choice.  We 
had  people  applying,  but  nothing  like  we  had  applying  when  Ruth 
retired;  we  had  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  applications  for  that  Job. 

Anyway,  it  really  was  in  Charlie's  hands.  He  heard  about  Ruth, 
who  was  working  for  Carl  Spaeth,  I  believe,  on  a  Ford  Foundation  grant 
down  at  Stanford,  and  felt  she  was  the  right  person.  No  one  had  any 
contrary  feelings  about  her.  And  so  Ruth  was  brought  in. 

Morris:   Did  the  board  have  some  discussions  about  what  kinds  of  qualities  they 
were  looking  for  and  what  direction — ? 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.  We  went  through  the  usual  things — I  think  we  very  much 
wanted  another  woman.  We  did  not  want  to  lose  our  ability  to  be 
close  to  the  so-called  grassroots,  both  in  the  Valley  and  in  the  city. 
We  wanted  to  try  to  get  someone  whose  personality  would  make  it 
possible  to  be  close  and  for  people  to  talk  to. 

The  most  important  single  thing,  I  believe,  is  that  when  someone 
comes  to  see  your  staff  person  in  the  office,  they  feel  completely 
comfortable  about  talking  to  her  or  him. 

Morris:   People  that  I  talked  with  tell  me  that  Ruth  Chance  never  sits  behind 
her  desk — that  she's  out  there  beside  the  desk. 

Charles:  Yes.  Well,  I  don't  know  how  Leslie  did  it,  but  in  any  case,  they 

both  had  the  same  effect  in  making  people  feel  they  were  really  being 
heard.  We've  been  extremely  lucky,  because  I  think  we  have  a  fine 
young  man  now,  who's  doing  much  the  same  thing. 

We  really  wanted  to  preserve  our  simplicity,  because  among  the 
applicants  we  had — 

Morris:   In  1958? 

Charles:  No,  the  last  two  years — for  Ruth's  successor.  Among  the  applicants 
we  had  high-powered  people  who  had  gotten  their  training  in  some  of 
the  eastern  foundations,  and  they  thought  our  Foundation  was  much  too 
informal,  and  they  were  going  to — [laughs]  and,  of  course,  the  thing 
they  said  that  absolutely  ruined  their  application  was  that  they  were 
going  to  straighten  up  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  and  make  it  into  a 
real  foundation.  Nobody  on  the  board  wanted  this,  and  so  they  Just 
got  lost,  right  then. 

Morris:   [Laughs]  Oh,  dear. 


73 


Charles:  But  it  was  kind  of  amusing,  because  they  were  young  people  who  had 

had  the  training,  as  I  say,  in  the  big  foundations,  where  everything 
is  parceled  out  ,  and  the  board  member  really  only  gets  to  anything 
much  later  on. 

Morris:   Could  you  say  a  little  bit  more  about  what  Ruth  has  meant  to  the 
community? 

Charles:  Oh,  my,  yes.  You  see,  because  she  approached  the  work  of  the 

Foundation  as  a  philosophical  as  well  as  a  practical  thing,  she  saw 
what  she  was  doing  all  the  time.  So  she  was  able  to  make  it  work  in 
a  way  that  you  can't  do  if  you  just  aren't  looking  at  the  total 
objective  that  you  may  have.  Ruth's  objective  was  always  to  try  to 
understand  what  the  world  was  doing,  what  the  times  were  doing,  and 
where  a  small  foundation  could  fit  in  places  where  nobody  else  would 
pick  it  up.  Ruth  had  grasped  immediately  the  somewhat  fumbling  ideas 
of  the  Foundation,  of  its  role. 

Ruth,  because  of  her  personality  and  her  extreme  insight,  has 
been  able  to  make  friends  with  every  single  person  she's  ever  inter 
viewed,  whether  she  rejected  them  or  not.  And  whether  she  absolutely 
put  them  through  the  mill  on  their  budget  or  anything  else,  she's 
been  able  to  do  that  and  divorce  it  entirely  from  any  feeling  of 
personal  friction.  It  was  always  on  the  basis  of  what  is  the  best 
way  for  them  to  do  what  they  wanted  to  do,  and  the  most  economical 
way.  That's  what  the  Foundation  wanted  and  so  Ruth  would  spend 
endless  hours,  and  people  are  just  crazy  about  her,  you  know — just 


adore  her. 
her. 


It's  meant  a  tremendous  amount  to  the  Foundation  to  have 


Morris:   That's  the  sense  I've  always  had. 

Charles:  Yes.  She  has  even  had  many  breakfasts  with  people  from  the  East  who 
were  here  and  realized  that  was  probably  the  best  time  to  see  her. 
And  probably  dinners,  too.  And  then  lunches.  Along  the  lines  of 
perhaps  getting  to  know  a  little  more  about  her — or  Ruth  and  I — when 
I  was  president,  we  would  have  lunch,  once  or  twice  a  month,  working 
on  what  was  coming  before  the  board,  and  what  policies  we  needed  to 
enunciate,  and  so  forth. 

She  has  tremendous  intellectual  ability  combined  with  her  feeling 
sense.  Ruth  is  really  a  total  person,  which  is  hard  to  acquire  in 
this  life,  and  which  is  what  we're  all  struggling  to  do:  somehow  to 
bring  our  intelligence  and  our  emotions  and  our  perceptions  all 
together  at  once,  and  be  able  to  respond  and  act  upon  what  we  see. 
And  Ruth  has  certainly  brought  that  to  a  high  sense  of  development. 


74 


Defending  Applications:  Innovations  in  Military  Counseling  and  Housing 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles: 


The  other  thing  about  Ruth  is  that  she  is  fearless  in  defending  her 
position  on  her  applications.  She  will  just  go  after  the  board  when 
they  decide  they're  not  going  to  do  something  that  she  thinks  they 
ought  to  do.  She  organizes  her  battles  as  if  she  were  in  court, 
arguing. 

Ben  Duniway  has  had  the  most  enjoyment,  I  think,  of  anybody  of 
teasing  Ruth.  Ben's  quite  a  tease  and  he  would  like  to  tease  her 
about  her  legal  positions,  and  it's  really ~ 

Her  briefs? 

Yes   That's  right.  Well,  that's  exactly  right.  Ben  has  always  had 
a  nice  relationship  with  Ruth.  Whoever  is  the  president,  Ruth's 
policy  was  to  remain  very  close  to  that  person,  to  be  sure  she  saw 
them.  She'd  go  to  his  office  or  wherever  with  her  stuff  that  she 
wanted  to  talk  over  and  get  ready  for  each  meeting.  And,  of  course, 
the  meetings  come  awfully  fast  when  you  meet  once  a  month.  You  just 
practically  are  either  preparing  for  one  or  getting  over  one  all  the 
time.  You  never  have  any  rest  from  it. 

But  Ruth,  you  know—she's  really  a  giant  in  her  abilities  and 
her  selectivities,  her  wisdom  in  being  able  to  realize  what  is  coming 
and  what  we  ought  to  be  doing  to  try  to  help  it.  And  the  way  she 
would  bring  things  into  the  Foundation  that  were  very  hard  for  some 
of  the  Foundation  members  to  swallow. 

For  instance,  she  had  an  application  for  a  grant  to  a  group  that 
was  advising  draftees  on  what  they  could  do  to  explore  their  situation 
withaview  to  getting  out.  You  remember,  early  in  the  Vietnam  war 
those  young  people  were  desperate.  Ruth  felt  that  this  was  an  abso 
lutely  legitimate  thing  for  the  Foundation  to  do.  But  she  ran 
complete  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  most  conservative  business 
members  of  our  board.  They  thought  it  wasn't  patriotic  or  loyal,  < 
we  just  shouldn't  be  mixed  into  it. 

This  was  painful  to  Ruth,  but  she  was  so  courageous  about  things- 
she  would  have  known,  as  I  knew,  that  she  couldn't  get  that  through 
the  board.  But  she  was  perfectly  willing  to  try  it  and  argue  for  it 
and  do  the  best  she  could.  It's  what  kept  us  in  the  forefront  of  the 
foundations  that  are  making  creative  grants. 

Does  a  proposal  like  the  draft  alternatives  produce  a  hot  and  heavy 
debate  amongst  the  board  members? 

Well,  the  board  is  a  very  sophisticated  board.  So  that  you  don't  get 
beyond  the  realms  of  courtesy  and  consideration.  And  your  views  are 
expressed  very  quietly.  So  you  don't  get  into  what  you  might  call 
'hot  and  heavy'  debate,  in  the  sense  of  emotion — 


75 


Morris:   Lengthy  might  be  a  better  word — 

Charles:  And  not  so  lengthy,  because  you  get  your  members — they  vould  express 
very  flat-footedly  what  they  thought,  and  you  knew  it.  For  instance, 
our  doctor,  Malcolm  Watts,  was  very  much  opposed  to  these  draft  things, 
and  he  only  had  to  say  it  once  or  twice  for  you  to  know  that  there  was 
no  argument  with  Malcolm  about  that.  And  we  have  tried  on  the  board — 
when  I  was  chairman,  of  course,  I  became  more  conscious  of  what  I  was 
trying  to  do. 

What  I  want  to  do  with  a  board  is  to  try  to  keep  it,  no  matter 
how  disparate  it  is,  together,  to  keep  the  opportunities  open  for 
discussion  and  support  of  differing  points  of  view,  but  to  recognize 
the  moment  when,  if  you  allow  anything  to  get  rammed  through,  it  will 
destroy  the  board  and  the  board's  self-confidence.  That  I  don't 
intend  to  be  a  party  to,  because  you  can't — a  board  is  an  entity,  and 
it's  a  very — I'm  not  thinking  of  the  word  I  want,  but  it  has  to  be  in 
balance,  and  it's  easily  unbalanced.  And  if  you  start  losing  members 
on  account  of  their  position  never  being  understood,  or  their  being 
cajoled  into  something  they  don't  believe  in,  I  can't  tolerate  that, 
and  I  don't  approve  of  it. 

What  about  an  issue  like  community  development?  There  were  a  number 
of  grants  in  this  area  in  the  fifties,  and  I  wondered  if  that  would 
be  one  that  caused  the  board  debate? 

No,  I  don't  think  the  philosophy  of  it  bothered  the  board  at  all,  but 
specific  applications  would  have  areas  in  them  we  thought — some 
different  members  of  the  board  would  think  were  not  possible  to 
accomplish,  or  perhaps  not  appropriate  for  us  to  do,  or  something  of 
that  sort . 

Community  development  grants,  actually,  Gabrielle,  in  that  sense, 
would  have  been  attached  to  the  welfare  of  children  and  youth,  or 
something,  because  that  is  not  one  of  our  regular  fields,  you  see. 
Those  applications — can  you  think  of  a  specific  one? 

Morris:   They  looked  to  me  as  if  they  came  out  of  the  interest  in  migrant 

children  and  families.  There  was  a  series  that  was  first  sponsored 
by  the  American  Friends  Service  Committee,  that  began  as  self-help 
projects  for  homebuilding. 

Charles:   Oh,  well,  that  was  something  else.  Yes.  You  were  thinking  of  those 
grants  where  the  man  had  invented  a  new  way  to  build  migrant  homes. 

Morris:   Yes.  The  point  that  struck  me  was  that  he  wanted  to  help  them  improve 
their  housing  and  felt  that  this  would  give  them — 


Morris: 


Charles: 


76 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Charles:  That  I  remember  well,  and  it  didn't  cause  any  hot  and  heavy  debate. 
The  reason  that  it  was  even  supported  was  because  his  idea  and 
methods  of  construction  were  such  that  nobody  had — it  was  a  real 
invention  of  his,  the  way  to  go  at  it. 

That's  a  point  I  hadn't  understood. 

We  liked  to  sponsor  innovative  things.  So  we  thought  if  we  could 
demonstrate  that  this  method  of  housing  built  better  housing  for  the 
migrants  to  live  in,  then  we  would  to  it  on  a  small  scale,  and  if 
somebody  else  wanted  to  pick  it  up,  that  would  be  fine. 

But  the  basis,  the  thing  you  have  to  look  for  when  you're 
reading  about  any  of  our  grants,  is:  what  is  the  tenuous  connection 
with  children  and  youth?  That's  the  only  reason  that  we  would  do 
anything  that  was  as  much  of  a  departure  as  that.  We  wouldn't  want 
anybody  to  think  that  we  were  in  the  development  of  housing  field. 
That  wouldn't  be  our  field  at  all.  We  only  saw  that  nobody  was  even 
making  it  possible  for  this  young  man  to  build  these  things,  and  we 
thought  they  ought  to  be  given  a  try.  Now,  I  don't  know  what  ulti 
mately  happened,  either,  about  that.*  But  it  seems  to  me  Ruth  has 
told  me  that  they've  gone  on — he's  gone  on,  and  been — 

Morris:   It  was  the  fact  that  it  was  a  young  man — ? 

Charles:  No,  not  the  young  man.  That  the  purpose  was  to  house  children, 

including  their  families,  you  see,  of  the  migrants,  who  were  so  badly 
housed—that  this  might  be  a  solution  to  a  problem  that  hadn't  been 
solved. 

Morris:   And  thereby  improve  the  whole  family's  feeling  about  itself? 

Charles:  Yes.  The  whole  family  relationships  and  the  children  and ^ everything. 
That  would  be  the  only  reason  we  would  to  that  kind  of  thing. 


New  Organizations  in  the  Valley 


Morris:   Then,  several  years  later,  there  was  a  Center  for  Community  Developmen 
that  received  a  grant;  their  interest  seemed  to  be  in  helping  low^ 
income  and  minority  groups  learn  to  speak  for  themselves  in  relation 
to  public  services  and  the  like. 


*See  Ruth  Chance  interview  in  this  series. 


77 


Charles: 
Morris: 

Charles : 
Morris: 

Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Where — here? 

I  believe  it  vas  down  in  the  Valley, 
organizing  of  agricultural  workers, 
was  on  the  Rosenberg  board? 

I  think  he  was  earlier  [1957-61 ]. 

His  company  was  then  in  agriculture, 
caused  him  problems  on  your  board? 


Other  people  were  doing  some 
Was  this  while  Robert  DiGiorgio 


I  wondered  if  this  would  have 


Bob  was  very  good  on  the  board.  We  all  appreciated  him  because  we 
didn't  know  what  his  reactions  would  be,  but  since  this  was  where  we 
always  worked,  we  were  not  going  to  stop  working  there.  And  Bob  took 
a  very  detached  point  of  view. 

Nov,  this  community  development  thing — we  had  some  very  serious 
questions  raised  with  us,  in  which  some  of  the  landowners  each  took  a 
board  member  to  persuade  to  get  out  of  the  migrant  business.  The  man 
who  called  me  was  Carl  Wente,  a  very  fine  old  man.  I  had  worked  with 
Carl  in  other  things,  and  he  said:  Mrs.  Charles,  I  just  have  a  strong 
feeling  that  you  don't  know  what  you're  doing  down  in  the  Valley. 

I  said:  Well,  tell  me  what  leads  you  to  this  belief. 

He  told  me  about  some  grant  that  we  had  made  that  caused  somebody 
to  join  the  union  or  something  of  that  sort,  and  I  said:  Well, 
Mr.  Wente,  that  grant  was  not  at  all  for  that  reason,  because  our 
only  purpose  is  to  make  things  better  for  the  children  down  there. 

We  had  underwritten  health  centers,  and  community  development — 
I  Just  don't  recall  what  that  is — and  schools,  better  schools  for 
them.  And  I  said:  We're  not  interested  in  unions. 

They  may  well  have  been  saying  down  in  the  Valley  that  the 
Rosenberg  Foundation  was  encouraging  unions.  I  think  this  preceded 
the  two  unions  that  are  down  there  now. 

Yes.  There  was  a  farmworkers'  organizing  committee  that  at  that 
point  was  not  yet  connected  to  the  Teamsters  or  the  AFL  or  Ce'sar 
Chavez.  Ernesto  Galarza  was  working  with  them. 

Oh,  yes.  It  was  said  all  over  the  Valley  by  the  far  right  and  by 
some  of  the  newspapers  in  Bakersfield  that  the  Rosenberg  Foundation 
was  a  well-known  left-wing  organization  that  was  trying  to  destroy 
the  fine  relationship  between  the  growers  and  the  workers. 

But  the  point  is  that  I  don't  think  you  ever  convince  anybody 
in  those  arguments,  you  know.  I  just  said:  Mr.  Wente,  I  am  sure  that 
we  do  know  what  we're  doing.   If  it's  being  called  something  else  down 


78 


Charles:   There,  I'm  sorry  about  that,  but  we  think  it's  very  important  that 
these  children  be  properly  fed  and  housed  and  that  their  health 
needs  be  taken  care  of  better  than  they  ever  have  been  before. 


Input  from  Experience  with  Other  Organizations 
[Interview  3:  11  November  1971*]//// 

Morris:   I  thought  today  we  might  tie  in  some  of  your  other  activities.  How 

has  your  work  with  other  organizations  been  helpful  to  your  work  with 
the  Rosenberg  Foundation,  and  vice  versa? 

Charles:   I  think  it's  been  tremendously  helpful.  I  occasionally  have  people 
say  to  me  that  when  they're  appointed  to  some  very  important  thing, 
then  they'll  get  out  of  everything  else.  I  think  you  should  do 
exactly  the  opposite,  because  I  think  that  ability  to  cross-fertilize 
things,  to  know  what  somebody  else  is  doing  and  what  other  organiza 
tions  are  doing,  is  very  helpful.  Now,  it  has  to  be  used,  that 
information,  in  different  ways.  That  remark  was  made  to  me  when  I 
was  asked  to  join  the  Stanford  board  in  '5^,  tut  I  found  it  immensely 
important  to  maintain  those  contacts  that  I  had  with  the  numerous 
other  organizations  that  I've  always  worked  with  in  one  way  or 
another.  In  fact,  during  all  of  that  period,  I  was  president  of 
Edgewood  orphanage,  and  then  I  was  president  of  the  Burke  School  and 
worked  in  organizing  auxiliaries. 

That  always  worried  Mrs .  McLaughlin  a  great  deal ;  she  didn  *t 
think  it  was  an  intellectual  enough  enterprise  for  me ,  because 
auxiliaries  were  not  part  of  her  generation's  life,  you  know.  I  tried 
to  explain  to  her  that  it  was  a  tremendously  important  outlet  for 
people  who  really  wanted  to  do  something  constructive,  and  didn't  know 
how,  and  were  not  going  to  be  doing  it  in  a  way  that  we  might  consider 
to  be  intellectual .  What  they  really  wanted  to  do  was  to  give  service 
in  an  organized  way. 

Well,  she  ultimately  agreed  with  that,  and  somewhere  in  her 
biography  she  refers  to  the  fact  that  it  probably  was  a  very  useful 
thing  to  do.  I  must  have  organized  about  a  dozen  auxiliaries  in  that 
period  right  in  there,  because  you'd  organize  one,  and  it  was 
successful,  and  then  somebody  would  want  you  to  come.  And  then  the 
main  job  was  how  to  get  out  of  running  their  auxiliary  for  them. 

So,  in  any  case,  I've  found  it  extremely  useful  to  have  the 
inside  information  that  I  had  about  what  other  organizations  were 
doing. 

Morris:   Did  it  provide  any  insight  into  how  organizations  worked  that  was 
useful  in  evaluating  some  of  the  Rosenberg  proposals? 


79 


Charles:  Well,  yes.   It  would.  I  would  say  that  in  an  organization  like  the 
Foundation,  and  maybe  you  could  use  it  with  Stanford,  too,  where  you 
have  a  very  highly  qualified  executive  director.  Because  at  the 
university,  of  course,  the  president  of  the  university  is  in  that 
position  of  being  the  executive  director  of  what  goes  on,  and  the 
trustees  sit  as  policy  makers;  but  you  make  better  policy  when  you 
know  more  of  what's  going  on. 

In  the  Foundation,  particularly,  where  you  have  a  very  small 
group — nine  persons — and  a  very  competent  executive  director,  the 
main  thing  is  not  to  get  in  her  way — to  make  it  possible  for  the 
executive  director  to  get  things  done.  So  that  it  is  very  important 
just  not  to  get  into  too  much  detail,  investigative  detail.  I  guess 
you  could  put  it  that .way. 

Morris:   As  a  board  member? 

Charles:  As  a  board  person,  because  you  simply  interfere  with  the  work  of  the 
person  that  you've  hired  to  do  that.  And  you  embarrass  them.  And 
those  things  don't  make  for  the  smooth  working  of  the  institution. 


Working  with  Young  Adults 


Morris:   Kow  about  youth  groups?  Several  people  have  commented  particularly 
on  your  skill  in  working  with  youth  groups . 

Charles:   It  isn't  so  much  working  with  youth  groups  as  it  is  working  with  young 
people . 

Morris:   Could  we  take  this  back  to  Mills  and  your  lectureship  there? 

Charles:  Oh.  Yes,  I'd  forgotten  about  that.  That  also  happened  in  those 

years.  You  know,  from  '1*8  to  '58,  I'm  surprised  I  kept  my  sanity, 

but  I  had  a  marvelous  time. 

problem. 


[Laughs]  I  didn't  even  know  I  had  a 


But  that's  true;  I'd  forgotten  about  that.   I  started  teaching 
at  Mills  and  stayed  there  for  ten  years,  teaching  twice  a  week.  I 
like  young  people  very  much,  and  I  think  they  like  me.  We  get  along 
fine.  Mostly  because  I  try  to  be  honest  in  what  I  say.  I  don't  think 
that  I  know  all  the  answers  to  everything.  In  fact,  I  have  to  say 
that  (and  maybe  I've  said  it  before)  I  think  my  life  has  been  a 
learning  experience  for  me.  I've  Just  kept  on  learning  things  that  I 
didn't  really  know  before. 

We  had,  I  think,  some  happy  experiences  at  Mills  College. 


80 


Morris:   Weren't  you  lecturing  on  the  involvement  of  women  in  the  community? 

Charles:  Yes.  We  changed  the  title  of  the  course  several  times,  tut  I  think 
maybe  'Community  Service'  might  have  been  the  title. 

The  classes  were  always  small,  there  was  plenty  of  time  for 
individual  understanding  between  me  and  the  students.  The  first 
thing ,  though ,  that  I  had  to  make  clear ,  and  that  took  a  little  doing 
that  first  year — and  once  you  did  that ,  then  it  was  known — was  that  I 
was  not  easy.  There  were  going  to  be  examinations,  and  they  were 
expected  to  know  the  answers,  and  so  on. 

My  first  semester,  when  I  gave  the  midterm,  the  papers  I  received 
were  universally  so  bad,  so  poor,  that  I  rejected  them  all.  A  couple 
of  the  students  started  to  cry,  and  we  had  a  great  to-do.  But  I  said 
to  them:  You  know  the  difference.  You  take  lots  of  courses.  This 
isn't  a  course  to  just  roll  through  without  doing  any  of  your  homework 
or  understanding  exactly  what  we  are  doing. 

And  we  understood  each  other. 
Morris:   What  department  was  this  in? 

Charles:  Education.  I  don't  think  they  had  a  sociology  department  at  Mills 
then.   I'm  not  sure  about  that;  I  haven't  followed  closely. 

They  were  really  very  good  to  me  there,  because  I  had  my  own  hour 
and  my  own  standards;  and  once  they  knew  that  I  had  standards — they 
saw  the  outline  of  my  course  and  knew  that  I  exacted  something  from 
the  students  and  probably  heard  from  the  students  that  I  did — we  all 
got  along  fine.  Because  I  think  that  young  people — I've  always  had 
the  theory,  and  always  found  it  to  be  true,  that  if  you  are  honest 
with  them,  they  will  measure  up  to  what  you  want  from  them.  That  is, 
honesty  from  them  and  good  intentions. 

So  that  a  lot  of  my  relationships  with  young  people  have  been 
more  informal  than  what  you  might  call  'working  with  youth  groups . ' 

Morris:   That's  a  good  distinction. 

Charles:  For  instance,  one  of  the  things  I'm  doing  now  is  this  Rockefeller 
Foundation  thing — I  won't  go  on  too  long,  except  to  say  that  the 
Foundation  put  a  little  money  in  it  to  start.  I  think  maybe  five 
hundred  dollars . 

Morris:   Rosenberg? 

Charles:  Yes,  Rosenberg  did.  Because  the  Rockefeller  Foundation  wanted  some 
local  support  in  order  to  get  this  thing  going.  In  fact,  it's 
completely  predicated  on  local  support.   The  arrangement  is  that  it's 


81 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles : 


about  eight  corporation  leaders  and  about  eight  ghetto  kids.  The 
object  vas  to  vork  out  a  way  that  they  could  be  of  mutual  benefit.  I 
was  sort  of  a — I  don't  know  what — ombudsman,  or  something. 

I  certainly  wasn't  able  to  contribute,  because  the — have  I  talked 
about  this  before? 


No,  you  haven't,  but  it's  been  referred  to  by  other  people, 
to  hear  more. 


I'd  like 


Well,  I  don't  want  to  use  up  our  precious  time  on  the  Foundation;  but, 
in  any  case,  the  ultimate  arrangement,  which  has  now  worked  for  more 
than  two  years,  is  that  the  executives  of  the  different  corporations — 
and  the  ones  that  are  presently  in  it  are  Bank  of  America,  Bob 
DiGiorgio's  company  (DiGiorgio  financial  company),  the  telephone 
company,  and  the  Fireman's  Fund  insurance  company — well,  I've  forgotten, 
but  I  could  get  the  list. 

To  use  a  current  expression,  that  group  has  quite  a  lot  of  clout. 

It  does.  Oh,  it's  a  real  thing.  It's  real.  For  instance,  Tom  Clausen, 
the  president  of  Bank  of  America,  has  really  been  almost  the  guiding 
force  of  this  group.  Bob  DiGiorgio's  been  extremely  helpful.  Well, 
a  lot  of  the  men  have.  But  during  that  first  year,  when  somebody  had 
to  really  hold  that  together,  it  was  Tom  Clausen  who  did  that.  And  we 
had  to  learn  how  to  get  along  with  these  ghetto  kids ,  who  were  pretty 
rough. 

We  met  on  a  first  weekend — 
A  retreat  kind  of  thing? 

A  retreat.  And  they  said:  We  don't  trust  you  businessmen.  They  all 
said  that.  And:  We  don't  know  what  you  want;  and:  You  break  your 
promises;  and — you  know.  Well,  it  was  really  a  fascinating  weekend 
to  watch  them.  They  actually  turned  pale,  the  businessmen  did.  They 
hadn't  heard  very  much  talk  like  that. 

And  the  young  people — you  know,  they  call  themselves  'the  youth' — 
they  have  an  idea  in  their  own  minds  that  youth  goes  up  to  about 
thirty-five.  They  don't  mean  what  we  mean  by  youth. 

That's  an  interesting  concept. 

Well,  they  say  when  the  Russians  talk  about  youth,  they  mean  thirty- 
five  is  maybe  the  cutoff  point. 

These  young  people,  some  of  them  are  the  same  ones  who  were  in 
the  original  group,  and  some  are  new  ones.  They've  substituted.  When 
one  person  leaves ,  they  vould — 


82 


Morris:   Did  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  grant  assist  in  selecting  which  young 
people  or  which  organizations  would  compose — 

Charles:  No.  When  Rockefeller  young  people  came  to  San  Francisco  to  set  up 

this  group,  they  visited  the  Foundations  here  and  asked  for  suggestions 
of  who  to  select.  They  talked  to  San  Francisco  and  Rosenberg,  and  ] 
don't  know  who  else  they  talked  to,  but  that  was  the  way  they  found 
their  young  people — through  the  local  foundations. 

Morris:   That's  interesting. 

Charles:  And  then,  Brooks  Walker,  Jr.,  is  also  in  this  group;  he's  president  of 
the  U.S.  Leasing  Corporation.  I  think  he's  on  the  board  of  the  San 
Francisco  Foundation,  too.  They  may  have  made  a  small  grant.  It  was 
an  organization  grant. 

It  was  a  very  loose  kind  of  a  thing— at  the  beginning  it  was 
almost  too  vague  to  get  a  handle  on  at  a  meeting.  They  did  finally 
write  a  proposal.  You  might  talk  to  Ruth  Chance  about  it.  She  11 
get  quite  excited  about  it  because  it  didn't  conform  quite  to  her 
idea  of  what  a  proposal  ought  to  be.  I  stayed  strictly  away  from 
the  whole  thing,  and  I've  forgotten  how  it  ultimately  turned  out;  but 
it  was  for  some  organizational  purpose. 

The  businessmen  almost  immediately  assessed  themselves  several 
thousand  dollars  a  year  to  make  that  thing  run,  and  eventually  they 
got  an  office;  they  paid  a  salary  to  one  of  the  young  people  to  be 
the  secretary  of  the  operation. 

Morris:   That's  a  new  idea,  too,  isn't  it? 

Charles:  Oh,  it's  all  new.  I  think  it's  very  interesting,  very  experimental. 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Does  it  have  a  name? 

It's  caned  Resource  Exchange.  The  businessmen  did  this  on  the 
basis  that  the  money  they  put  in  is  really  operational  money. 
method— and  the  reason  they  call  it  Resource  Exchange  is  that  they 
would  try  to  look  for  material  they  had  that  would  be  useful  to  this 
group. 

Suppose  a  company  was  moving.  When  Metropolitan  moved,  some 
body  'd  call  up  and  get  all  their  typewriters  or  furniture  or  something 
that  these  kids  could  use.  Then  the  kids  have  a  warehouse,  and  when 
somebody  needs  equipment,  they  come  to  them.  So  that's  why  they  call 
themselves  Resource  Exchange.  They're  kind  of  a  center  for  the 
acquisition  of  stuff  which  is  probably  useless  to  the  corporations 
or  the  institutions,  but  means  a  lot  to  somebody  starting  up  an 
operation. 


83 


Charles:   It's  been  extremely  successful.  The  Rockefeller  Foundation — this  is 
John  D.,  Ill — started  this  in  about  six  or  seven  cities.  I  think  the 
only  concept  they  had  was  some  kind  of  a  partnership  betveen  the 
really  top  business  people  and  the  top  ghetto  kids  who  had  made  their 
way — hadn't  left,  but  had  achieved  some  success  within  their  own  groups 
to  be  self-supporting  or  self-sufficient  in  one  way  or  another.  And  I 
think  this  one  has  survived  in  the  most  interesting  way. 

We  meet  once  a  month  for  breakfast  at  seven-thirty  in  the  morning, 
all  year  'round.   Sometimes  the  young  people  furnish  the  breakfast, 
and  sometimes — for  instance ,  our  next  meeting  will  be  next  Monday 
morning  at  seven-thirty  at  Fireman's  Fund.  Sometimes  the  telephone 
company  does,  sometimes  the  Bank  of  America  does.  They  take  turns, 
and  then  the  kids  do  it,  too,  which  is  very  nice. 

But  my  role  has  been  one  of,  really,  conferring  with  the  young 
sters.  If  they  think  something's  going  wrong,  they'll  call  me  and 
say:   Can  we  come  see  you?  What  do  you  think  is  the  problem? 

Occasionally  I'll  get  hold  of  them  and  tell  them  that  they're 
much  too  hard  on  the  businessmen.  Because  they  occasionally  make  a 
power  play  when  they  want  to  get  something — for  instance,  they'd  love 
to  have  that  group  take  a  stand  on  valid  issues.  Well,  it  would  be 
the  death  of  the  group  if  you  had  to  do  that,  because  the  businessmen 
might  be  completely  on  the  other  side  of  whatever  issue  the  young 
people  thought  was  important.  But  the  personal  relationships  between 
them  mean  that  the  businessmen  are  willing  to  give  in  and  assist  in 
things  and  areas  where  they  might  not  be  willing  to  go  on  record  as 
supporting  it  on  a  political  basis. 

I  Just  said:  Now,  you  kids  don't  want  to  destroy  a  very  delicate 
relationship  you  have  by  your  inability  to  understand  these  business 
men  and  how  they  function  and  what  they  can  take  from  you. 

Because,  really,  they'd  get  very  rough,  you  know,  and  press.  We 
had  a  couple  of  kids  who  left  it  because  they  said:  Well,  if  we  can't 
get  what  we  want,  we  won't  stay. 

And  I  said:  Well,  I  think  that's  fine,  too. 

This  is  a  delicate  thing  to  do.  For  instance,  they  take 
advantage,  and  should,  of  their  coining  to  know  somebody  like  Tom 
Clausen  or  Bob  DiGiorgio,  and  they  will  go  to  them  on  the  outside 
and  say:  We  have  a  project.  Would  you  help  us?  Outside  of  Resource 
Exchange.  They  never  would  know  them  otherwise.  Or  they'll  come  to 
me  and  review  with  me  what  the  foundation  resources  are  in  the 
community  that  they  might  tackle. 


84 


Charles:  I  just  had  a  visit  from  a  young  group  in  the  Mission  who  are  trying 
to  give  information  to  Mission  residents  about  where  they  might  go 
for  this,  that,  or  the  other  thing.  One  of  them  is  a  young  student 
at  Boalt  Hall  who  wants  to  give  legal  information;  what  it  is,  really, 
is  an  attack  on  a  language  problem,  because  so  many  of  the  people  in 
the  Mission  don't  speak  English.  And  unless  there's  a  place  where 
they  can  go  to  get  what  they  want  in  Spanish,  they're  helpless.  So 
the  young  lawyer — he's  going  to  graduate  this  year,  I  believe — and  the 
young  woman  who  runs  this  information  center  (I  don't  know  exactly 
what  they  call  it)  came  over  to  see  me.  And  I  said  to  them:  Are  you 
prepared  now,  to  go  after  money?  Do  you  know  what  you  do  yourself — 
what  you  want  the  money  for? 

Well,  it  had  never  occurred  to  them  that  they  needed  to  know 
these  things,  and  I  Just  made  a  list  for  them — a  little  sheet  of 
paper  that  clearly  laid  out  what  they  did;  that  they  ought  to  under 
stand  what  kinds  of  services  they  proposed  to  provide,  and  where 
people  could  help;  and  separated  them  into  different  categories.  So 
that  if  somebody  would  want  to  help  with  the  legal  end  of  it — 

Morris:   They  could  identify  it — 

Charles:  They  could  identify  it  and  identify  the  cause — 

Well,  this  young  lawyer  said  to  me:  Well,  now,  that's  a  new 
idea. 

This  is  why  I  love  to  help  these  young  people,  because  a  lot  of 
these  things  that  are  old  to  us  are  brand  new  to  them.  They  don't 
understand  they  need  to  be  organized  if  they're  going  to  go  out  for 
money.  You  can't  just  take  a  shot  at  some  rich  person  and  bring  'em 
down.  If  you're  going  to  raise  money,  then  you've  got  to  be  an 
organized  effort  and  you  have  to  be  prepared  with  the  materials 
that'll  be  needed.   So,  anyway — 


Expectations  of  Support 


Morris:   Sitting  on  the  Rosenberg  board,  could  you  identify  where  in  time 
these  new  ideas  began  to  develop,  in  leadership? 

Charles:  Yes.  I  called  Ruth  early  this  morning  because  I  wanted  to  get  a 
little  better  perspective  on  the  sweep  of  things.  You  know,  it's 
hard  for  me.   [Laughs]  I'm  not  far  enough  away  yet  from  the  whole 
thing.  After  all,  I  did  Just  leave  Rosenberg  in  January  and  I 
haven't  yet  got  the  perspective,  as  I  have,  for  instance,  on  the 
League  of  Women  Voters.   I  know  what  a  developmental  thing  they've 
gone  through,  because  I'm  separated  from  it  enough  to  see. 


85 


Charles:  The  thing  I  wanted  to  clarify  in  my  mind,  and  which  was  really  very 
satisfying  to  me  in  my  brief  talk  with  Ruth  (because  I  had  lost  the 
dates,  which  you  have,  you  see;  I  came  on  in  'U8,  and  Ruth  came  in  in 
'58.   So  Leslie  Ganyard  was  there  the  first  ten  years  that  I  was  on 
the  board),  was  that  it  gave  me  an  opportunity  to  see  what  a  tremen 
dous  thing  Leslie  Ganyard  did  for  the  Foundation  because  of  her 
pragmatic  approach. 

In  Leslie's  day,  the  problems  were  different  from  the  problems 
which  really  were  beginning  when  Ruth  came  in,  in  '58  and  the  beginning 
of  the  sixties.  Leslie's  Job,  which  she  did  to  perfection,  was  to  get 
out,  travelling  up  and  down  the  state.  She  was  getting  acquainted 
with  people  who  were  doing  things.   I  think  that  there  was  still  a 
hangover  from  the  old,  lady  bountiful  days,  where  the  people  to  whom 
we  gave  money  were  immensely  pleased  to  get  the  money.  Whereas  Ruth 
came  just  at  the  beginning  of  the  era  which  now  continues,  when 
people  thought  they  deserved  money  for  the  things  that  they  wanted 
to  do  and  were  not  afraid  to  ask  and  be  very  aggressive  about  it. 
There  couldn't  have  been  a  better  person  than  Ruth  to  interpret  what 
they  wanted,  to  bring  it  to  the  board  in  a  fashion  that  wouldn't 
offend  us  because  we  hadn't  been  exposed  yet  to  these  very  aggressive 
methods ,  and  make  it  possible  for  us  to  be  comfortable  in  giving 
money  to  entirely  different  kinds  of  groups. 

During  that  first  ten  years  when  I  was  on  there,  we  were  not 
really  spending  all  the  money  we  had  to  spend,  even  though  it's  no 
great  sum.   Interest  on  fourteen  or  fifteen  million  dollars  may  be 
$700,000  or  $600,000  a  year,  which  is  small.   But,  still,  we  weren't 
spending  all  that.   So  we  were  accumulating  a  surplus  and  we  needed 
to  know  how  to  spend  that.  Because  we  had  a  policy,  that  perhaps  was 
unwritten,  that  we  did  not  intend  to  accumulate  more  money.  We 
intended  to  spend  the  legitimate  interest  on  our  investments,  and  we 
also  didn't  want  to  put  the  Foundation  out  of  business  by  overspending— 

Morris :   And  going  into  the  capital  fund? 

Charles:  And  going  into  the  capital.  We  had  no  intention  of  doing  that.  That 
wasn't  a  problem  to  us,  that  ten  years.  It  was  during  that  time  that 
we,  one  year  (and  I  think  I  may  have  mentioned  this  earlier),  tried  to 
initiate  or  invite  applications  from — 

Morris:   From  the  educational — 

Charles:  From  the  educational  world.  We  got  around  to,  I  guess,  four  or  five 
universities.   I've  forgotten  now.  Mills,  Stanford,  and  so  forth.   I 
wanted  to  clear  up  with  Ruth  this  morning  when  that  happened,  because 
it  was  before  she  came  in.   It  was  all  over  when  she  came  in,  but  it 
was  a  very  disappointing  experience.  Some  people  weren't  ready  to 
apply  for  any  money  for  anything.  And  we  would  get  applications  that 


86 


Charles:  were  obviously  Just  made  up  because  they  knew  there  was  some  money 

somewhere.   Nobody  was  being  dishonest,  but  they  Just  weren't  within 
our  fields  of  interest. 

And  so  we  decided  that  was  an  experiment  that  didn't  work.   I 
think  we  gave  some  money. 

Morris:   That's  interesting  in  relation  to  the  study  that  was  done  by  Mabel 
Ellsworth  in 


Charles:  Yes. 

Morris:   She  commented  that  from  the  material  she  had  gone  through,  the  projects 
which  seemed  to  be  best  were  ones  that  really  came  out  of  a  felt  need 
in  the  requesting  organization. 

Charles:     Oh,  yes.      Spontaneously,  yes.     There's  no  doubt  about  that.     We  tried 
initiating  and  it  didn't  work.      And,  of  course,   there  was  no  need  to 
try  again,  because  about  the  time  Ruth  came  in  we  began  to  be  flooded 
with  applications.      This  wasn't  because  of  Ruth's  arrival,  because 
nobody  knew  Ruth.     She  came  out  of  the  law  school  down  at  Stanford, 
where  she'd  been  doing  some  work.      She  wasn't  known,  really,  very  much 
in  the  welfare  field.      If  it  had  been  twenty  years  later  and  she  was 
known  as  she  is  known  now,  it  would  have  been  perfectly  natural  that 
we  would  have  had  that  response. 


Awareness  and  Regulation  of  Foundations 


Morris:   Are  you  saying  that,  in  those  post-World  War  II  years,  there  were 
things  going  on  in  society  that  brought  this  flood — ? 

Charles:  What  I'm  saying  is  that,  beginning  about  in  the  early  sixties,  people 
began  to  understand  what  foundations  were  for,  and  so  they  began  to 
know  enough  about  going  after  money  for  themselves.   People  became 
bolder  about  coming  in,  as  they  should  be.  But  they  would  have  been 
hesitant  to  come  into  a  foundation  earlier,  really.   I  don't  think 
people  generally  understood  foundations. 

The  big  foundations  were  Just  beginning  to  come  out  here  to  the 
West  and  make  grants.  And,  of  course,  for  those  first  years,  we  were 
the  only  foundation  that  made  the  kind  of  grant  that  we  made,  and 
which  I  think  is  our  peculiar  distinction.  And  that  is  small  grants, 
so  to  speak.  I  can't  remember  a  grant  for  more  than  fifty  thousand. 

Morris:       Yes.     You  said  that  you  thought  that  many  of  the  Rosenberg's  best 

grants  had  been  in  the  five  and  ten  thousand  dollar  range.  That  was 
very  striking. 


87 


Charles:  That's  right.   Fifty  thousand  and  under.  And,  of  course,  ve  were  in 
a  different  boat  from  the  big  foundations,  as  far  as  the  supply  of 
money;  more  could  be  done  with  little  grants,  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
people  were  very  earnest  about  it.  They  would  see  something  they 
could  do  in  remedial  education  or  welfare — as  you  know,  we  were  much 
interested  in  the  Valley  and  the  migrant  workers. 

Then,  also,  another  change  took  place  at  that  time,  which  I 
wanted  to  check  with  Ruth  this  morning;  because,  for  once,  I  decided 
I'd  better  give  a  little  thought  before  you  got  here  as  to  what  I 
might  say  to  you  [laughs].   Because  I've  been  bad.  You  were  prepared, 

and  I'm  not. 

Morris:   My  function  is  to  say:   In  1962,  this  happened. 

Charles:  Remind  me.   But  the  requests  and  the  grants  began  to  be  more  urban, 
you  see.   Previously,  they'd  been  in  the  country,  rural.  And,  in 
fact,  one  of  the  things  that  we  have  done  only  recently  in  the  last 
two  or  three  years  was  to  try  to  stimulate  more  grants  from  rural 
areas.  -Because  we  realized — Ruth  would  go  on  her  visits.  She  always 
kept  that  up.  And  when  we  were  looking  for  a  new  executive,  the  one 
thing  we  absolutely  insisted  on  was  that  it  be  a  person  who  would  be 
comfortable  about  leaving  his  desk  and  going  out.   So  he'd  be  out  of 
the  office,  maybe,  a  couple  of  days  a  week. 

Morris:   And  also  someone  either  familiar  with  or  open  to  rural  communities? 

Charles:  That's  right.  We  feel  it's  the  most  neglected  area,  as  far  as  what 

can  be  done  to  help  people  in  small  ways.  And  it's  really  interesting. 
When  you  get  into  it,  you  would  be  surprised  to  learn  of  the  many 
opportunities  and  advantages  there  were  in  a  city — not  that  you  have 
to  be  so  naive  about  it ,  but  in  a  city  compared  to  what  you  find  in  a 
very  small  town.  And  I'm  talking  about  towns  way  up  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  state  or  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state,  and  not  semi- 
big  towns,  like  Stockton  or  Sacramento  or  those  cities,  but  the 
small — 

Morris:   You're  thinking  of  places  like  Placerville  and  Auburn? 
Charles:  Yes.   They  really  could  use  help,  and  they  don't  have — 

Morris:   Going  back  to  when  these  urban  grants  began  to  multiply,  or  people 
•  became  bolder,  as  you  said,  were  there  any  organizations  you  recall 
that  particularly  spearheaded  some  of  these  more  innovative  kinds  of 

requests? 

Charles:  During  Charlie  Elkus's  period,  as  long  as  he  was  in  the  Foundation, 
he  had  certain  things  that  he  was  particularly  interested  in.   One 
was  Karl  Holton  and  the  Juvenile  Justice  commission — it  wasn't 
called  that  then. 


88 


Morris:   Karl  Holton  was  director  of  the  Youth  Authority. 

Charles:  That's  exactly  right,  and  that  vas  his  thing.  Anything  that  came 

through  him,  we  took  a  very  serious  look  at,  and  usually  did,  because 
it  would  be  some  unusual  way  of  taking  care  of  those  problems.  And 
those  were  not,  of  course — well,  it's  hard  to  say  'urban1  or  "rural.1 
Usually  the  children  in  trouble  had  come  from  some  urban  area,  I  think, 
even  though  the  institutions  themselves  might  be  in  rural  areas.  It 
was  really  dealing  with  the  problems  of  growing  up. 

Morris:   Did  the  board  have  much  discussion  of  the  propriety  of  a  private 
foundation  giving  grants  to  a  state  agency? 

Charles:  Well,  we  went  through  that  discussion.   I  don't  know.   Ruth  would  know 
better  than  I  whether  that  actually  began  when  she  came,  but  I  don't 
believe  so. 

Morris:   Those  grants  go  back  quite  a  ways.  The  transient  youth  study  was 

begun  in  19^6,  and  then  the  older  girl  and  the  law  in  1957.*  Many  of 
those  reports  seem  to  be  still  very  sound. 

Charles:  We  discussed  that  whole  area,  and  our  justification  always  remained 
that  it  had  to  be  something  that  hadn't  been  done  before.  But  we 
discovered  that  legally  we  could  make  grants  to  state  agencies,  as  I 
understand  it. 

Morris:   The  political  aspect  wasn't — 

Charles:  Wasn't  an  issue.  We  didn't  think  of  it  as  an  issue. 

Morris:   I  guess  what  I'm  doing  is  thinking  back  from  the  concern  that's  come 
up  recently — foundations,  I  gather,  are  prohibited  from  political — 

Charles:  Yes.   That's  a  complete  change,  and  that  was  a  change  in  the  law.  But 
there  were  no  such  laws  at  the  time  that  we  were  making  these  grants , 
In  fact,  foundations  were  hardly  regulated,  I  think,  at  all. 

There  were  many,  many  foundations  that  didn't  observe  what  you 
might  call  sound,  charitable  principles.  We  didn't  really  know  any 
around  here,  but  we  knew  that  they  existed  throughout  the  country-- 
a  way  for  people  to  get  their  money  put  away  in  a  so-called  profitable 


*These  studies  were  made  under  the  guidance  of  statewide  committees 
appointed  by  the  chairman  of  the  California  Youth  Committee,  founded 
in  19^2  to  advise  the  governor  and  later  renamed  the  Governor's 
Advisory  Committee  on  Children  and  Youth. 


89 


Charles:  way,  or  at  least  without  being  taxed;  and  then,  occasionally,  it  went 
to  the  members  of  the  family.  These  kinds  of  abuses  of  the  purpose  of 
foundations  had  gone  on  quite  a  while  and  were  really  what  led  up  to 
these  new  laws  in  the  seventies. 

Following  those  laws  is  costly  for  foundations  like  ours,  in  the 
sense  that  we  have  to  have  additional  personnel  and  a  good  deal  of 
additional  work  and  reports.  We  also  have  to  pay  a  tax  ourselves,  now, 
to  the  federal  government,  which  was  not  true  before.  Yet,  most  of  us 
who  worked  hard  in  a  legitimate  foundation  operation  really  welcomed 
those  laws.  We  were  not  the  people  who  protested  them,  except  that  we 
just  didn't  want  the  additional  work.  But  we  did  know  that  there  were 
people  who  needed  such. laws  if  they  were  not  going  to  bring  down  public 
obloquy  and  criticism  on  the  foundations. 


Some  Continuity  of  Grantee  Relationships 


Morris:   How  about  the  minority  community?  The  Mexican-Americans  seem  to  have  been 
a  special  interest  of  the  Foundation  long  before  this  became  a  popular 
cause. 

Charles:  Yes.   Because  we  were  concerned  with  the  migrants  and  they  were  mostly 
Mexican-American.  We  didn't  actively  move  toward  minorities  as  a 
special  case. 

We  tried  to  take — but  the  fact  is,  of  course,  that  all  of  our 
grants  came  to  the  office,  to  the  executive  director.  And  as  time 
went  on,  we  had  repeated  board  actions  about  what  kinds  of  things  she 
could  reject  in  the  office.  We  always  had  a  list  in  the  front  of  the 
book  of  what  had  been  rejected,  and  whenever  she  didn't  have  a  clear 
policy,  then  she  would  bring  it,  and  we  would  reject  it. 

For  instance,  we  have  never  given  money  for  scholarships  or  any 
individual — for  a  person  doing  individual  research.  We  would  just 
decline  that  out  of  hand,  because  we  considered  that  our  purposes 
were  for  projects,  demonstrations  that  benefited  a  number  of  people. 
We  were  not  thinking  of  benefiting  a  single  person  who  was  trying  to 
get  his  degree  or  something  of  that  sort.  That  has  not  been  considered 
the  purpose  of  the  Foundation,  and  I  doubt  if  it  ever  would  be. 

Morris :  There  also  seems  to  have  been  continuing  response  to  the  needs  of  the 
Negro  community.  Do  you  recall  the  series  of  projects  with  Neighbor 
hood  House  in  North  Richmond? 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.  That's  right.  And  I  did  get  off  that  subject.  Planned 

Parenthood  we  had  a  long  relationship  with.  We  have  had  relationships 


90 


Charles:  with  the  Girl  Scouts  and  the  Campfire  Girls.  And  most  of  the  schools, 
once  they  knew  that  they  would  not  be  eliminated,  would  come  in  to  us 
with  creative  things ,  and  the  departments  of  education  when  they  were 
trying  to  teach  something  that  was  a  departure. 

But  when  the  executive  director  would  discover  an  organization 
that  seemed  to  come  up  with  creative  ideas  as  demonstrations,  we  would 
take  very  serious  looks  at  those  things  and  develop,  sometimes,  quite 
a  consistent  relationship  with  them;  and  I  think  that  the  Neighborhood 
House  is  one  that  is  a  good  example. 

I  think  the  most  interesting  things  that  we  did  were  often  just 
kind  of  little,  freakish  ideas  that  somebody  would  have  of  a  way  to  do 
something.  And  sometimes  a  sponsorship  would  turn  up  something  very 
unusual.  But  we  were  always  trying  to  see  that  we  went  toward  young 
people.  So  that  we  restricted  our  grants  always  to  youth,  although 
youth — the  age — Just  varied  up  and  down  all  the  time.   It  gave  us  a 
huge  field.  A  lot  of  the  things  that  we  did  would  have  to  do  with 
parents,  but  because  they  were  involved  with  their  children,  we  wanted 
to  do  it. 

Morris:   In  terms  of  strengthening  the  family  unit  and  relationships. 
Charles:  Yes;  right. 


Young  Applicants 


Morris:   Has  the  board  ever  discussed,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  how  they  feel 

about  youth  expanding  into  the  twenty-five  to  thirty-five  age  bracket? 

Charles:  No.  It's  never  been  discussed  in  there,  at  least  while  Ruth  was  there 
I  don't  know  what  Kirke  is  doing  now,  or  whether  they  are  seeing  the 
age  rising.  This  was  really  an  idea  that  came  to  me  from  this  Resourc 
Exchange. 

I  think  the  reason  it  came  is  because  these  young  people  from  the 
ghetto  are  not  all  that  young.  They're  along  in  their  twenties  some 
where,  and  as  they  stay  with  us,  they  get  toward  thirty,  you  see,  and 
still  call  themselves  the  youth.  But  I  don't  think  that  Rosenberg  has 
thought  about  that . 

Morris:   Another  phase  of  Rosenberg  grants  (maybe  it  comes  into  sharper  focus 
in  the  annual  reports)  is  the  grants  to  the  counterculture,  the 
alternative  services.  Those  seemed  to  peak  in  1969,  '70,  and  '71. 

Charles:     That's  right.     And  when  those  began  coming  in  to  us,  Ruth  was  the  firs 
to  realize    (Ruth  and  I  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  on  the  telephone, 


91 


Charles 


Morris : 


Charles 


Morris : 


arguing;  if  I  say  that  Ruth  began  to  realize,  she'll  say:  I  couldn't 
have  done  it  if  the  board  had  not  begun  to  realize.  And  we  then  get 
into  that  sort  of  thing) — Ruth  began  to  see,  and  the  board  was  not 
unwilling  to  see  with  her;  but  she  was  the  one  who  saw  that  we  were 
going  to  be  dealing  with  young  applicants,  that  weren't  going  to 
always — 

The  applicants  themselves  were  young  people,  rather  than  the  traditional 
model  of  a  group  of  older  people  saying:  We  must  do  something  for  the 
youth  in  this — ? 


Sponsoring  organization,  yes.  Absolutely, 
these  people  were  in  their  mid-twenties. 


It  was  a  change,  because 


Depends  on  what  you  mean  by  youth;  we  would  be  interested  in 
encouraging  requests  from  very  much  younger  people,  in  the  teens,  for 
instance,  who  might  have  discovered  something.  But  I  don't  think 
that  this  has  ever  developed  into  anything,  because  the  older  people, 
through  whom  they  would  have  to  work,  would  probably  not  understand 
what  it  was  we  were  trying  to  do — which  was  to  get  them  to  stimulate 
the  young,  but  then  try  to  give  them  the  major  responsibility  for 
doing  whatever  was  done.  But  when  they  got  along  in  their  twenties, 
there  were  a  great  many  things  coming  to  us  from  groups  of  young 
people  with  new  ideas,  you  know — the  street  people,  and  that  sort  of 
thing. 

I  made  a  list  from  the  19&9  annual  report  of  grants  that  seemed  to  me, 
by  their  titles,  to  be  in  this  category  as  much  as  anything  else.   It 
was  close  to  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  dollar  total  of  grants  made 
that  year. 

Charles:   I  believe  you,  yes. 

Morris:   There  was  the  Youth  Resource  Center,  and  a  mobile  learning  center  with 
junior  college  students  as  teachers.  There  was  an  in-community  school, 
the  Switchboard,  Hospitality  House,  Youth  Art  Gallery,  Glide  Foundation 
Project  for  Unwed  Mothers,  the  Chinese  Streetworker,  West  Oakland 
Legal  Switchboard,  Black  Arts  Music,  a  cross-cultural  family  center 
involving  a  toy  bank. 

Charles:  But  I  don't  know  whether  you  can  make  that  generalization  about  all 
of  those,  because  as  I  listen — for  instance,  the  tutoring  projects 
were  still  supervised  by  a  professor,  somewhere  along  the  line,  in 
San  Francisco  State  College  at  that  time. 

We  had  to  find  somebody  to  receive  our  grant.  That  was  one  of 
the  problems  we  began  running  into  around  that  time,  too — to  whom  we 
would  give  the  grant,  who  was  considered  responsible  and  established. 
By  our  own  rules,  we  had  to  give  it  to  an  institution. 


92 


Accountability 


Morris:   This  is  before  the  accounting  requirements  of  the  federal  government? 

Charles:  Yes.  These  were  our  own  rules  that  we  required  of  ourselves  because 
we  had  to  account  for  our  money  and  where  it  went  and  how  it  was 
spent,  and  so  forth.  We  always  wanted  a  responsible  institution  or 
even — I'm  trying  to  remember  if  we  ever  did  give  it  to  a  bank — but 
somebody  who  was  used  to  accounting,  and  would  give  us  the  information 
that  we  needed,  that  it  was  properly  spent. 

It  was  tremendously  to  our  advantage  that  Ruth  had  her  legal  . 
training;  that  was  very  helpful  to  us.   She  viewed  the  problems  in 
giving  money  away  as  a  lawyer  would  look  at  them,  as  to  accountability 
and  so  on.  I  think  if  you  ever  interviewed  our  accountants,  you'd 
find  that  they  got  instructed  by  Ruth,  rather  than  the  other  way 
around.   [Laughs]  She  didn't  always  like  the  way  they  went  at  it, 
and  she'd  make  them  do  it  all  over  again  and  do  it  another  way. 

Morris:   Oh,  marvelous.   I  wanted  to  ask  you  about  the  people  in  charge  of 
minding  the  capital.  How  did  they  respond  when  you  did  reach  the 
years  when  you  wanted  to  go  into  capital  to  make  all  the  grants  you 
wanted  to? 

Charles:  Well,  we  never  went  deeply  into  capital.  I  don't  know,  you'd  have  to 
get  the  facts  on  that.  It  was  never  our  intention  to  do  that  to  any 
great  extent.  We  had  the  feeling,  as  the  requests  got  more  numerous, 
that  we  never  wanted  to  be  in  a  position  of  underspending  our  income. 
So  that  we  always  said  we  would  rather  take  the  risk  of  overspending 
and  going  into  capital,  than  of  underspending  and  having  money 
leftover. 

Now,  the  new  laws,  as  I  understand  it,  make  it  possible  for  you 
to  stretch  it  over  two  or  three  years.  So  you  might  go  considerably 
over  in  one,  and  then  you  could  go  under  it  the  next  year  or  so. 
And  that  would  not  be  considered  accumulating  your  money.  I'm  not  a 
lawyer,  so  I  can't  always  make  the  right  statements  about  that. 


Board  Studies  Community  Programs  and  Attitudes 


Charles:  You  see,  our  board  divided  itself  into  small  committees.  We  had  a 
finance  committee  and  a  nominating  committee,  of  course,  and 
occasionally  we  would  appoint  a  board  member  or  two  to  some  special 
project  that  had  come  in  not  fully  developed,  and  where  the  executive 
director  would  feel  that  she  could  use  help  from  a  couple  of  members 
of  the  board. 


93 


Morris:   Could  you  think  of  a  couple  of  instances  of  that? 

Charles:  Well,  let  me  see  if  I  can.  Recently,  we  vere  beginning  to  try  to 
change  our  program  a  little,  in  order  to  do  several  large  things 
rather  than  so  many  small  ones,  because  we  began  to  realize  that  we 
didn't  have  the  personnel  in  the  office  to  follow  so  many  small 
projects. 

#?: 

Charles:   One  of  the  things  we  became  very  much  interested  in  was  this  child 
abuse  program,  which  we  had  begun  in  a  very  small  way.   Ruth  Chance 
discovered  this  remarkable  woman,  Mrs.  Davoran,  who  had  really  become 
an  authority  on  child  abuse,  and  it  became  evident  that  it  could  be 
one  of  the  things  that  we  might  select  as  a  field  from  which  we  would 
welcome  applications.  We  asked  a  couple  of  board  members  to  look  into 
that,  and  to  look  into  what  was  being  done  out  at  the  San  Francisco 
General  Hospital,  and  so  forth. 

We  have  only  occasionally  asked  the  board  members  to  look  into  a 
program.   Our  board — I've  always  respected  them  for  that — have  tried 
to  stay  quite  free  of  inspiring  applications  or  being  responsible  for 
them  in  any  way. 

Morris:   The  child  abuse  problem  is  curious.   It  has  seemed  to  be  in  the  back 
ground,  a  factor  in  a  number  of  concerns  about  young  children,  but  for 
so  long  people  seemed  to  avoid  looking  at  it  as  an  issue  in  its  own 
right. 

Charles:   I  think  that's  quite  true,  and  that  was  true  for  a  good  many  years. 

For  instance,  the  first  thing  we  did  in  that  field,  I  believe,  was  in 
Santa  Barbara,  where  somebody  had  the  idea  of  a  telephone  service, 
where  you  could  call  if  you  were  about  to  abuse  your  child  and  let 
somebody  talk  you  out  of  it.   It  seemed  to  work  very  well,  and  I 
thought  it  was,  myself,  quite  an  insightful  thing,  that  most  people 
really  don't  want  to  do  things  like  that,  but  they  get  absolutely 
exasperated. 

Morris:   I  remember  it  coming  up  as  a  point  in  a  couple  of  research  papers  on 
child  care  in  the  mid-fifties,  but  then  when  the  child  care  proposals 
were  written,  they  didn't  talk  about  child  abuse  any  more. 

Charles:  No,  I  know  that.  But,  as  you  well  know,  things  like  that  are  faddish. 
There  are  probably  thousands  of  things  that  need  to  be  done,  but 
something  sort  of  catches  the  public  eye,  or  some  particular  case 
makes  people  sensitive  to  it.   For  instance,  did  you  read  yesterday 
or  the  day  before,  where  some  poor  young  woman  had  killed  her  child? 
The  poor  woman.  She  had  a  three-year-old.  She  had  this  infant.   She 
was  pregnant  vith  another  one,  and  I  guess  she  didn't  know  what  to  do. 


94 


Charles:  I  don't  know  vhat  kind  of  a  person  she  was,  but  the  approach  is  very 

different  now.   It's  much  more  compassionate.   I  guess  we  talked  about 
that  last  time— about  the  change  in  public  attitudes.  That's  been  an 
enormous  change,  I  think,  of  compassion  toward  people  we  would  have 
thought  of  as  criminals. 

And  there  was  something  my  husband  and  I  were  talking  about  this 
morning,  while  we  were  reading  the  paper;  it  was  the  fact  that  student 
have  taken  up  alcohol  again,  so  it  said  in  the  paper. 

Morris:   Yes.  That  was  a  very  startling  thing. 

Charles:  And  it  was  interesting  to  me,  because  most  people  of  my  generation — 
most  men,  particularly—think  that's  a  very  harmless  and  proper  way, 
if  you  want  to  be  wild,  to  be  wild. 

Morris:   It's  part  of  the  'coming  of  age'  thing? 

Charles:  Yes.   And  I  said  to  Al:  We  think  of  the  drugs  as  something  for  which 
we  ought  to  have  a  cure,  that  it's  inspired  by  some  lack  in  people 
that  we  ought  to  be  able  to  analyze  and  do  something  about.  But 
alcohol,  except  as  the  society  worries  about  alcoholism  in  adults — 
when  young  people  do  this  as  part  of  their  college  libertarian  ideas, 
it's  not  quite  looked  upon  in  the  same  way,  and  maybe  it  should  be. 
I  don't  know.  Maybe  if  somebody  can't  control  his  drinking — 


Observations  on  Decision-making  by  Committees 

Morris:   Since  we  have  your  husband  on  stage,  I  wanted  to  ask  you  how  he  felt 
about  the  great  involvement  of  time  your  work  has  taken  over  the 
years,  and  how  you  work  that  out  as  husband  and  wife. 

Charles:  Well,  he  has  always  been  awful  good  about  it,  although  sometimes  he's 
gotten  very  irritated,  and  he'll  say  to  me,  when  I  start  giving 
orders,  that  this  is  not  the  League  of  Women  Voters.   [Laughter] 
But  that  was  years  ago,  and  he's  always  been  generous  about  the 
things  that  I  have  gotten  involved  in,  and  where  I've  had  some 
recognition,  you  know.   He's  really  been  quite  wonderful  about  that. 

We  have  been  fortunate  in  that  he's  been  an  extremely  successful 
and  well-recognized  lawyer.  His  ability  is  something  that  he  doesn't 
have  to  be  embarrassed  about,  and  which  has  made  him  one  of  the  top 
lawyers  in  town.  So  that  we  haven't  had  that  feeling  that  I  was 
taking  anything  away  from  him  in  my  involvement  in  voluntary  organi 
zations.  And  the  other  thing  was,  and  he  finally  would  laugh  with 
me — I  would  laugh  at  him  first — he  dislikes  these  community  things. 
He  does  them,  but  they  annoy  him. 


95 


Morri  s : 


Charles 


Morris:   They  do? 

Charles:  Because  they  take  too  much  time,  you  see.   He  has  something  else  he 
thinks  he'd  better  do — and  not  only  thinks,  he  probably  does  have 
something  legal  he  ought  to  be  doing.  He'll  go  to  a  lunch,  you  know, 
for  some  charitable  organization,  and  find  this  conversation  to  no 
end,  as  he  would  say,  to  no  point,  going  on  and  on  and  on,  when  he 
ought  to  be  back  in  his  office  doing  something  else,  and  resents  it 
very  much.  He  doesn't  like  to  go  and  have  to  hear  long  speeches  on 
things  when  they  could  send  him  a  paper  and  let  him  read  it.   [Laughs] 
That's  his  idea. 

How  about  things  like  his  service  on  the  BART  board?  Didn't  that 
involve  a  fair  amount  of  technical  and  business  matters? 

Well,  that  was  something  quite  different.  He  enjoyed  that  very  much. 
Al  is  not — I  really  think,  although  he's  a  marvelously  patient  man  as 
a  husband  and  a  father,  he  doesn't  have  the  patience  to  listen  to  a 
lot  of  nonsense  that  you  have  to  listen  to  when  you  work  in  these 
organizations.  You  have  to  find  out  people's  attitudes  about  things 
and  come  to  understand  why  they  have  them,  and  come  to  understand  how 
you  can — and  Al  really  doesn't  like  that  aspect  of  community  service 
at  all. 

He  enjoyed  BART  because  it  was  dealing  with  something  that  he 
believed  to  be  terribly  important  that  the  city  get  started  doing. 
He  really  enjoyed  his  associations,  but  he  got  terribly  impatient 
about  it  and  frustrated  because  things  didn't  always  go  the  way  he 
wanted  them  to  go.   That  he  would  like  and  would  tolerate,  but — now, 
he's  on  two  or  three  boards  right  now.  He's  on  the  International 
Institute  board,  which  he  started  out  on  twenty  years  ago. 

Morris:   Did  he? 

Charles:  And  then  they  asked  him  back  on  it.  Well,  he  just  gets  absolutely 
wild  (I  don't  really  pay  any  attention  to  him),  and  then  I  say  to 
him:  I  believe  that  there  is  enough  community  work  to  be  done  that 
each  of  us  can  find  something  that  we  enjoy.   I  see  no  reason  to  come 
home  so  frustrated  that  you — 

And  so  he's  bad.  He'll  go  on  a  board  and  then  maybe  not  go  to 
several  meetings.  He  doesn't  do  it  conscientiously.  He's  conscientious 
as  a  person,  but  he  doesn't  get  the  sheer  pleasure  that  I  get,  for 
instance,  out  of  Just  watching  how  people  behave  on  boards. 

Morris:   -The  process  of  community  decision-making? 

Charles:  Yes.   How  it's  done  and  how  you  can  deal  with  certain  kinds  of  people 
and  can  help  to  get  the  right  answers ,  or  at  least  what  seem  to  you 
to  be  the  right  answers,  by  a  little  better  understanding  of  how  those 
particular  people  work  than — 


96 


Morris : 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris : 
Charles : 


Somebody  made  the  comment  that  quite  often  on  a  board  or  a  committee 
there  are  a  lot  of  points  of  agreement  between  people  who  think  they 
dislike  each  other.  Have  you  found  that,  too? 

Yes.  I  think  that's  quite  true.  One  of  the  things  that  I  have  always 
done  (I  did  it  first  unconsciously,  and  now  I'm  able  to  do  it  much 
more  consciously)  was  to  try  not  to  make  my  comments  early,  but  try  to 
begin  to  see  where  the  agreement  might  lie.  So  that  at  some  point,  I 
could  say  to  the  group:  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are  generally 
willing  to  recognize  that  this,  that,  and  the  other  thing;  and  the 
only  thing  we  really  have  yet  to  discuss  is  something  else. 

And,  of  course,  this  is  very  helpful  if  you  have  somebody — I'm 
chairman  of  a  committee  right  now  for  Public  Broadcasting  Service, 
and  there's  a  station  manager  from  Philadelphia  whom  I  like  to  have 
at  every  meeting  because  he's  very  gifted  in  that  respect.  He  doesn't 
talk  much  until  suddenly  he  will  say:   It  seems  to  me  that  we  have 


certain  agreements,  and  I  would  like  to  move  thus  and  so. 
good  at  this. 


He's  very 


It's  very  hard  for  the  chairman  to  do  that,  because  it's  much 
better  if  the  committee  itself  participates  sufficiently  so  that 
somebody  on  the  committee  can  make  such  a  proposal  and  make  the 
motion.     The  chairman  can't  make  a  motion,  you  see.     So  that  when  you 
recognize  that  you  have  somebody,   I  must  say  that  it's  a  very  nice 
feeling.      I  know  that  this  man  will  always  do  this.  He  probably  doesn't 
know  himself  that  he  does  that,  you  know. 

Have  you  ever  discussed  it  with  him? 

I  never  discussed  it.  I  don't  want  to  make  him  self-conscious  about 
it. 

That ' s  a  good  point . 

I  think  it's  much  better  for  him.  He  does  it  naturally,  and  it's 
extremely  helpful  to  everybody,  because  he  senses  the  areas  of 
agreement.   Sometimes  we  get  in  a  rough  discussion,  where  there  seems 
to  be  a  lot  of  dissension,  but  if  you  can  pick  out  two  or  three  areas 
and  move  ahead  on  those,  sometimes  the  other  things  will  disappear. 
Most  people  want  to  get  along  and  want  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion 
that's  fair. 

I 
I  think  that  to  do  successful  community  work,  you  have  to  believe 

in  people  and  want  to  get  along  with  them  and  want  solutions  to  be 
reached.  If  you  don't  have  that  willingness,  you  won't  really  enjoy 
it.  I  don't  really  mean  to  apply  this  only  to  my  husband,  because  he 
is  such  a  good  person,  and  has  been  such  a  marvelous  husband,  but  he 
really  is  very  impatient.  When  you're  working,  you  just  have  to  sit 


97 


Charles:  around  and  listen  to  a  lot  of  stuff  before  you  can  really  start  pulling 
out  what  it  is,  and  where  they're  going  to  agree. 

Now,  of  course,  a  lawyer's  training  is  very  different  from  that. 
He's  got  to  prepare  a  case  for  which  he's  an  advocate,  and  he's  going 
to  be  using — unless  he's  convincing  a  jury,  he  doesn't  really  need  to 
get  the  agreement  of  all  these  people  in  a  discussion,  as  you  need  to 
in  a  committee.  Even  when  you're  trying  a  case  before  a  Jury,  you  want 
their  agreement,  but  they're  not  entering  into  it  every  minute,  you 
know.  They're  just  listening. 

Morris:   And  you  can  make  your  whole  case — 

Charles:  Yes,  that's  right.  And,  of  course,  in  groups  you  just  can't  do  this. 
I  was  advising  some  new  young  people,  who've  just  come  onto  the 
Stanford  board — they  came  to  see  me,  to  know  what  the  best  procedure 
was,  and  I  said:   If  you  disagree  with  something  that  is  being  proposed 
at  the  board,  if  you  can  possibly  let  the  person  who's  responsible  for 
the  motion  or  the  action  that  is  going  to  be  taken — if  you  can  let  him 
know  in  advance  of  the  meeting  that  you  want  to  object,  he  will  respond 
much  better  and  be  much  more  helpful  to  you  than  if  you  suddenly  burst 
out  in  the  meeting  and  say:  I  don't  agree  with  you  at  all.  Because 
you  throw  that  person  off  his  rudder;  but  if  he  knows  in  advance  that 
he's  got  some  objection — 

What  happened  the  last  time  when  I  recommended  this  to  the  young 
people — they  did  what  I  told  them  to  do,  and  at  the  meeting  the  next 
day,  this  person  withdrew  that  motion,  because  he  saw  that  he  was  going 
to  have  too  much  dissension. 

Morris:   He  had  been  advised  beforehand? 

Charles:  Yes.   And  he  had  the  privilege  of  withdrawing  it  without  somebody 

forcing  him  to  have  to  do  that.   You  don't  get  along  well  by  embarras 
sing  people.   That's  the  last  thing  in  the  world  you  should  ever  do, 
if  you  can  possibly  avoid  it. 

Morris:   Is  this  particularly  a  problem  or  a  caution  in  groups  where  you've  got 
a  generation  gap?  In  other  words,  an  older  group  and  a  younger — ? 

Charles:  Well,  it's  only  a  caution  to  the  young  ones.  They  don't  understand  it 
at  all.   They  love  a  good  confrontation.   It's  very  hard  for  them  to 
understand  that  the  group  process  is  really  a  way  to  arrive  at  a  con 
sensus.  It  is  not  a  way  to  force  your  own  opinion — in  fact,  you  can't, 
force  your  own  opinion.  That's  the  trouble.  You  alienate  half  the 
people  there  when  you  do  that. 

This  is  hard,  and  I'm  always  taking  my  young  people  aside  in 
Resource  Exchange,  you  know,  and  saying:  Now  if  you  want  to  make  that 
point,  I  suggest  you  do  it  another  way — that  you  talk  to  a  couple  of 
people  in  advance  and  make  your  preparation. 


98 


Charles:  Of  course,  that  isn't  as  exciting;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  don't 
always  lose.   I  mean,  they  will  almost  always  lose  when  they're  doing 
it  as  an  ego  trip — you  know,  I  love  some  of  those  expressions.   They're 
so  marvelous. 

Morris:   Very  vivid. 


99 


9.   PRESIDENT  OF  THE  ROSENBERG  BOARD:   1971-197^ 


Women  as  Presidents 


Morris:   Could  we  talk  a  little  bit  about  your  vork  as  president  of  the 
Rosenberg  board? 

Charles:  Yes. 

Morris:   When  you  worked  to  have  Ellie  Sloss  become  president,  didn't  somebody 
say:  That  means  you're  going  to  want  to  be  president,  too. 

Charles:  Yes.   [Laughter] 

Morris:   How  did  you  feel  when  that  did  come  to  pass? 

Charles:  Well,  Ruth  has  been  remarkable.  Her  idea  of  her  Job  as  executive 
director  was  to  be  involved  in  everything  that  went  on ,  not  in  an 
offensive  way  but  in  a  constructive  way. 

Morris :   Including  things  like  the  board — 

Charles:  Like  who  was  to  be  the  president  and  all  of  those  things.  And  she 
said  to  me:  Caroline,  you  should  be  president  of  this  board. 

I  said:   I  certainly  should  be.  There's  absolutely  no  doubt 
about  it. 

And  she  said:  Well,  I  think  you  will  be  now. 

I  had  been  vice  president,  you  see,  and  it  would  have  been 
logical,  except  that  I  was  a  woman,  that  I  would  be  the  next  one. 
Ruth  knew  that,  and  Ruth  said:  It's  not  going  to  be  that  way,  and  I 
don't  think  that's  what  they  want  to  do. 

Well,  fortunately,  Ruth  sat  in  on  some  of  the  nominating  committee 
meetings,  and  she  expressed  this  idea.  Maybe  they  would  have,  anyway; 
I  don't  know.   I'm  not  confident  about  that.   I  had  been  on  there  an 


100 


Charles:   awful  long  time,  and  I  finally  said  to  myself:   I'm  not  going  to  get 
off  until  they  make  me  president,  because  I  think  it's  a  reflection 
on  vomankind  [ laughs ] . 

Al  said  to  me:  Well,  I  think  you  could  do  it— like  that. 

And  I  said:  What  do  you  mean?  You  know  very  well  I  could  do  it. 

Well,  he  likes  to  tease  me,  "because  he  knew  that  would  inflame  my 
comments.  But,  in  any  case,  it  seemed  to  work  quite  smoothly.  I  don't 
think  it  would  have  if  Ruth  hadn't  been  there. 

Morris :   Everybody  on  the  board  seems  to  have  been  quite  in  support  of  Ruth  as 
executive.   If  they  had  no  problem  with  a  woman  executive,  why  were 
they  reluctant  to  have  a  woman  president? 

Charles:  Oh,  no,  no.  That's  very  different,  very  different — the  executive. 
That  is  something  that  has,  I  think,  run  ahead  of  the  officers  in 
voluntary  organizations.   It  seems  to  me  that  women  have  been  accepted 
in  the  posture  of  being  executives  or  operational  management  earlier 
than  they  have  been  as  president.  Even  now,  certain  organizations 
would  not  consider  having  a  woman  president. 

You  wouldn't  want  a  woman  president  at  Stanford,  although  I  was 
terribly  pleased  because  I  was  asked  to  be  one  of  the  vice-presidents 
about  five  years  ago.  About  two  years  ago,  the  president  of  the 
university  came  to  me  and  said  that  he  and  his  wife  were  going  to  be 
out  of  the  country,  and  he  would  like  me  to  be  acting  president  of 
the  university  while  he  was  gone.  Well,  you  could  have  knocked  me 
over  with  a  feather. 

Morris:   How  marvelous. 

Charles:   I  was  very  pleased  about  that. 

Morris:   That  would  be  a  good  way  of  testing  the  water. 

Charles:  Oh,  no.  There  was  nothing — you  couldn't  do  any  harm,  anyway.  I  mean, 
you're  so  bound  in  by  all  the  conventions  that  have  gone  before  that 
it  would  be  almost  impossible  for  the  president  of  anything,  including 
probably  the  President  of  this  country  (although  we  Just  saw  an 
example  where  he  did  an  awful  lot  of  damage);  but  it's  very  hard  for 
the  president  of  an  established  institution  to  do  any  real  harm. 
You're  so  bound  in  by  all  the  things  that  have  gone  before  and  all  of 
the  people  you  have  to  consult. 

I  think  the  reason  women  don't  attain  to  these  positions  is  more 
because  of  some  sensitivity  on  the  part  of  the  institution  that  it 
might  downgrade  the  institution  itself  because  they  had  a  woman 
president.   I  don't  know  that  Mills  has  ever  had  a  woman  president 
of  their  board  of  trustees . 


101 


Morris:   But  you  did  get  to  be  president  of  the  Rosenberg  board. 

Charles:  Yes,  That's  right. 

Morris:   And  when  you  assumed  that  position,  did  you  feel  any  negative  vibrations? 

Charles:  Oh,  not  a  bit.   No,  not  a  bit.   It  was  Just  almost  like  an  oversight. 
As  it  had  been  with  Ellie,  several  years  previously.   It  was  Just — 
they  never  thought  of  it.  And  once  they  had,  and  she  was  a  very  good 
president,  then  it  went  back  to  the  men. 

The  men  want  these  things,  you  must  remember  that,  too.  We 
always  revolved  the  presidency  and,  since  we  didn't  have  any  established 
rules  about  how  many  terms  you  could  serve  on  the  board,  it  was  possible 
for  every  man  on  the  board  to  be  president.   If  there  was  a  man  on  the 
board  who  had  not  been  president,  this  was  what  he  wanted.  So  there 
wasn't  going  to  be  a  woman  put  in  as  president  when  there  was  a  man 
who  could  be. 

Morris:   Even  though  you'd  been  there  longer? 

Charles:  Oh,  yes.   But  I  was  going  to  have  to  get  off  sooner  or  later,  and  I 
was  vice-president  under  Ben  Duniway;  so  it  seemed  to  me  that  if  I 
didn't  become  president  then,  I  would  have  to  get  off  and  forget  the 
whole  thing ,  you  know. 


Refining  the  Foundation's  Goals 


Morris:   Were  there  some  goals  that  you  set  for  yourself? 

Charles :  Well ,  I  always  try  to  set  goals  when  I  become  the  president  or 

chairman  of  anything  by  trying  to  understand  the  purposes  of  the 
organization,  and  then  what,  in  a  year,  you  could  do.  Now,  we  have 
a  customary  three-year  term,  but  you  couldn't  really  look  at  it  as 
what  you  could  do  in  the  next  three  years. 

Well,  my  goals  were  extremely  well  set  without  my  assistance, 
actually,  because  the  Foundation  was  at  a  point  when  it  was  going  to 
lose  its  executive  director.  I  didn't  have  to  be  retired  for  age, 
because  we  don't  have  any  age  limit  on  the  directors;  but  Ruth  was 
going  to  be  sixty-five  within  a  year  or  two,  and  we  had  to  start 
some  orderly  process  of  looking  for  a  successor  for  her. 

Secondly,  during  the  previous — I  suppose  you  could  say  as  long 
as  ten  years — all  of  us  on  the  board  had  become  extremely  aware  that 
somehow  we  had  to  limit  our  program  so  that  our  meager  staff,  which 


102 


Charles:  nobody  really  vanted  to  enlarge,  could  carry  it.   It  was  not  because 
we  didn't  want  to  give  our  executive  director  help,  but  because  we 
wanted  to  be  a  small,  unified  group.  At  least  for  myself  I  express 
it  this  way,  and  I  think  this  was  shared  by  the  board.  It  might  not 
have  been  expressed  in  the  same  way;  we  know  that  the  large  foundations 
the  big  eastern  foundations,  were  not  able  to  have — 

Morris:  You  say  'big  eastern,1  rather  than  'big  national.1 

Charles:  I  do,  don't  I? 

Morris:  Yes,  you  do. 

Charles:  [Laughs]  But  I'm  a  westerner,  and  have  been — 

Morris:   I'm  a  New  Englander,  originally,  and  it's  very  interesting  to  be  now 
a  westerner  and  hear  this. 

Charles:  Well,  we  have  to  fight  for  our  rights,  sometimes,  Gabrielle.   I  find 

that  in  everything  I  do  with  the  East,  I  have  to  every  once  in  a  while 
stand  on  my  rights  as  a  westerner,  because  they  don't  even  know  there's 
any  country  out  here,  mostly,  even  now. 

But,  in  any  case,  the  large  foundations  were  so  staffed  that  no 
one  person  on  the  staff  reviewed  all  the  applications,  and  could  say: 
This,  of  all  the  things  we've  been  asked  to  do,  we  think  is  the  best. 
Or:  This  is  the  one  we  should  look  at. 

Now,  one  of  the  things  that  we  have  liked  in  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation  has  been  having  a  single  person,  whose  mind  and  intentions 
we  respected,  able  to  bring  to  us,  at  a  meeting,  eight  or  ten  appli 
cations  out  of,  say,  maybe  forty  or  thirty  or  however  many,  that  in 
her  mind  were  the  best  that  we  could  do  within  the  framework  of  what 
we  wanted  to  do.  We  didn't  want  to  give  that  up.  And  we  felt  that 
any  kind  of  assistance  that  she  might  have  couldn't  meet  Ruth  Chance's 
own  idea  of  the  kind  of  help  that  she  needed. 

We  spent  a  lot  of  time  talking  about  this — to  decide  what  kind 
of  help  we  could  give  her  that  would  make  her  Job  any  easier,  because 
she  had  a  very  strong  feeling  that  she  wanted  to  see  for  herself  the 
thing  that  was  being  asked  for,  to  interview  for  herself  the  various — 
because  Ruth  used  a  very  interesting  system,  which  I  thought  was  like 
getting  a  fix  on  things,  from  my  training  as  a  mathematician.   It  was 
like  getting  a  fix  on  something  from  many  different  points  of  view, 
and  this  is  what  Ruth  would  do.  She  would  not  use  just  the  people  who 
had  been  noted  on  the  application  as  references.  She  herself,  in  most 
fields,  would  know  who  the  people  were  who  ought  to  know  about  this 
thing.  Or  if  they  didn't,  that  in  itself  would  be  significant.  So 
she  would  get  her  fix  on  it,  but  she  didn't  want  anybody  else  getting 
that. 


103 


Charles:  Now,  there's  a  great  deal  of  merit  to  that  position,  because  if  you 

need  confidential  information  it  has  to  go  to  you,  because  the  person 
you're  talking  to  trusts  you.  So,  if  your  assistant  calls  and  says: 
Would  you  please  give  me — you  know — 

Morris :   Tell  me  what  you  think  of  so-and-so? 

Charles:  Yes.   They'll  be  extremely  cautious,  because  your  assistant  is  not  the 
person  they  know,  yet.  Now,  maybe  you  could  develop  that  as  you  went 
along. 

So  that  it  looked  to  us — and  those  three  years  of  mine  were  really 
spent  in  an  attempt  to-  see  how  we  could  rearrange  our  program,  our 
objectives,  so  that  we  could  give  our  executive  fewer  things  to  consider, 
so  she  wouldn't  get  a  hundred  applications  a  month,  or  something  of 
that  sort,  which  was  impossible  for  her  to  review.  Very  early  on  the 
board,  although  I  don't  know  if  we  ever  had  a  motion  on  that,  decided 
that  they  did  not  want  to  establish  a  staff. 

There  was  another  issue,  too,  aside  from  the  convenience  or  the 
wishes  of  the  staff,  which  was  the  cost.   In  a  small  foundation,  where 
you  only  have  $600,000  a  year  to  spend,  if  you  spent  a  hundred 
thousand  on  staffing  up,  and  that  meant  larger  offices  and  more 
secretaries — all  the  supporting  stuff — we  felt  that  we  would  be  using 
more  of  our  money  than  was  prudent,  money  we  wanted  to  spend  on  grants. 

The  one  thing  that  struck  everybody  with  horror,  I  think,  was  the 
idea  that  we  might  go  out  of  existence.  We  could  have  decided  to  Just 
spend  ourselves  out  of  existence.  Well,  I  think  nobody  could  stand 
that.  And  that's  because  of  our  personal  self-esteem,  you  see,  and 
that  of  the  Foundation,  which  had  made  its  place  as  probably  one  of 
the  only  foundations  that  considered  little  projects  that  would  change 
something,  you  know,  in  a  small  way.  Ruth  certainly  led  the  way — as 
we  did,  ten  or  twenty  years  ago,  for  that  sort  of  thing. 

The  San  Francisco  Foundation  does  a  good  deal  of  that  now,  which 
is  marvelous,  and  there  are  a  number  of  small  foundations  that  have 
come  up  to  do  that.   Nobody  else  does  that  sort  of  thing  except  the 
small  foundations,  because  the  big  ones  don't  do  that.  We've  learned 
that  occasionally  one  of  the  big  foundations  will  come  in  and  pick  up 
a  project  that  we'd  started  in  a  small  way. 

Morris:   Yes,  Ruth  has  commented  on  that. 

Charles:  And  then  drown  it  in  money.  We  would  have  to  go  pick  up  the  thing 

again,  after  they  had  pulled  out,  because  we  would  be  very  sensitive 
to  the  fact  that  some  little  group  that  was  doing  some  experimental 
work  simply  couldn't  handle  any  more  money. 


104 


Morris:   If  a  project  grows  too  fast,  the  people  running  it  lose  control  of  it 
and  what  they're  doing? 

Charles:  Yes.   They  don't  have  enough  personnel  to  run  it  right.   They  don't 
have  accounting  procedures — I  don't  mean  financial,  but — 

Morris :   Operational . 

Charles:  Yes,  operational.   They  are  totally  unable  to  handle  it,  and  the  whole 
thing  disappears.  We  had  one  or  two  operations  like  that  where  we 
went  back  and  picked  up  after  the  big  foundation  that  had  come  in  and 
given  them  several  hundred  thousand  dollars,  which  they  didn't  even 
have  any  idea  how  to  spend.   I  believe  those  days  are  gone,  you  see, 
now,  for  the  moment.   The  great,  big  grants  that  used  to  sometimes 
destroy  the  thing  they  wanted  to  help  are  disappearing  now.   The 
government  made  a  great  many  of  those  grants,  and  some  of  the  big 
foundations  did. 

But,  in  any  case,  we  did  resolve  early  in  my  presidency  that  we 
wanted  to  continue  as  we  were,  as  far  as  the  operation  of  the  Founda 
tion  went,  but  that  in  some  way  we  were  going  to  have  to  devise  a 
method  to  make  it  possible  for  a  single  staff  person  plus  an  executive 
assistant,  who  is  not  really  operating  in  the  selection  of  grants — 

Morris:   Betty  Boutelle  has  more  of  an  informational  function? 

Charles:  Oh,  yes,  indeed.  She  does  a  very  good  job,  and  we're  very  lucky  to 
have  her,  but  we  don't  have  two  experts.  That's  the  point.  There's 
no  argument;  if  Ruth  or  Kirke  decide  that  this  is  the  one  to  go,  Betty 
is  not  going  to  say:   I  don't  think  it  should  be. 

If  you  had  a  second  person  of  the  same  stature,  you  might  have 
that.   In  any  case,  we  could  be  wrong,  but  that  was  what  we  decided. 

Morris:   Did  you  discuss  this  concept  with  board  members  from  other  local 

foundations,  to  the  effect  of:   If  we  cut  down  here,  can  you  move  into 
some  of  the  area  that  we  used  to  make  grants  to? 

Charles:  What  happened,  actually,  was  that  we  didn't  have  to  carry  on  those 

discussions,  because  in  the  last  ten  years  the  San  Francisco  Foundatio 
and  some  of  the  smaller  foundations  who  worked  together,  had  a  little 
group  that  met  together  and  were  interested  and  able  to  pick  up  some 
of  the  kinds  of  grants  that  we  had  previously  been  the  only  ones  who 
had  taken  an  interest  in. 

We  also  knew  that  not  infrequently  the  executive  of  Rosenberg 
would  get  together  with  San  Francisco  or  van  Loben  Sels  or  Zellerbach, 
and  they'd  all  three  put  a  little  money  into  something.   They  would 
do  this. 


105 


Charles:  Our  training  as  board  members  would  be  that  the  board  wouldn't  get  into 
that  kind  of  dealing.  That  would  all  be  done  between  the  executives. 
We  would  never  say  to  the  president  of  the  San  Francisco  Foundation — 
I  would  not  say  to  the  president:  Let's  get  together  on  something. 

That  would  be,  really,  an  invasion  of  what  we  considered  was  a 
responsibility  of  the  professional  director. 

So  we  didn't  need  to  do  that.  I  think  that  the  thing  we  needed 
to  do  first  was  to  accept  the  fact,  and  Doctor  Malcolm  Watts  was  the 
one  who  convinced  us  that  we  needed  to  limit  our  scope. 

I  put  him  in  charge  of  future  planning,  or  some  name  of  that  sort, 
which  was  a  committee  to  start  with.  We  would  have,  maybe,  one  extra 
meeting  a  month,  which  would  be  the  future  planning  committee. 
Finally,  I  made  a  number  of  changes  to  accommodate  what  I  was  per 
ceiving:  that  the  whole  board  really  wanted  to  be  in  on  it,  and  that 
we  shouldn't  try  to  arrive  at  a  decision  with  a  five-man  committee 
bringing  their  recommendations  in  to  four  other  members  of  the  board. 
It  was  ridiculous.   So  we  worked  as  a  committee  of  the  whole,  so 
everybody  could  put  in  his  two  cents'  worth. 

Morris:   That's  an  interesting  comment  that  all  of  the  board  members  felt  that 
they  wished  to  be  involved  in  that. 

Charles:   Oh,  my,  yes.  We  have  always  had  that  kind  of  a  board.   It's  really 

quite  remarkable.   I  would  say  that  maybe  once  or  twice  in  the  history 
of  the  Foundation  we  had  board  members  who  didn't,  and  they  never 
stayed  very  long.   Because  what  keeps  you  interested  is  your  own 
willingness  to  be  involved  in  the  decisions.  We  were  making  some 
enormously  important  decisions  in  those  three  years.   One  was  trying 
to  interview  and  discover  a  new  executive,  and  the  other  one  was 
trying  to  preserve  the  values  of  the  Foundation.   In  the  meantime 
curtailing  the — 

Morris:   Coping  with  the  realities. 

Charles:  Yes.   And  that  was  very  difficult  to  do,  because  our  openness  had 

been  one  of  our  great  advantages,  and  people  loved  to  come  in  and  be 
able  to  talk  to  our  executive  director.   So  it  was  a  long,  hard  row 
to  hoe. 


Morris : 


We  finally  ended  up  in  a  compromise,  deciding  early  that  we  would 
perhaps  try  to  select  three  fields  in  relation  to  that  that  we  could, 
again,  limit.   For  instance,  we  decided  we  would  want  to  take  appli 
cations  related  to  child  abuse;  that  is  limited  by  its  very  name. 

It  would  also  keep  a  toehold  with  your  earlier,  long-standing  interest 
in  the  juvenile  justice  system. 


106 

Charles:  Yes.  We  wanted  to — and  Ruth  had  always  hoped  we  would — be  open  to 
people  whom  we'd  worked  with  over  some  period  of  years,  like  the 
Pacific — what's  the  name  of  that  school  down  in  Pasadena? 

Morris:   Oaks. 

Charles:  Oaks,  yes.   That  Ruth  felt  did  immensely  creative  work.  And  also, 

though,  we  did  not  eliminate,  completely,  very  unusual  things  in  the 
field  of  children  and  youth,  whether  it  was  education  or  welfare  or 
whatever  it  might  be  that  might  come  to  the  attention  of  the  directors 
I  think  we're  operating  along  that  same  way  now. 

Morris:   It  sounds  like  you  picked  the  best  of  a  number  of  options. 
Charles:   [Laughs]  Well,  we  did.  We  combined  them  all  together,  in  the  end. 


Departure 


Charles 


Morris: 


Charles 


But,  you  know,  I  have  one  rule  for  myself  that  I've  observed  ever 
since  I've  been  in  community  work,  and  that  is  that  when  I  get  out,  I 
get  out — clear  out.  I  don't  ask  to  see  the  minutes  any  more,  so  I 
have  no  idea  what  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  has  recently  been  doing. 
Nor  do  I  call  back  and  say:  What  did  you  do  this  month? 


I  just  think  those  people  who  do  are  terrible, 
have  people  do  it  to  me— - 


I  don't  like  to 


I  should  think  the  temptation  might  be  irrestible  when  you've  invested 
years  of  your  time. 

Well,  no,  it's  not.      Unless  you're  Just  not  busy.      And  I  am  very  busy, 
and  I  always  make  an  absolute  point  of  finding  something  else  in  whicl 
I  will  interest  myself  deeply.     So  that  I  don't  have  to  discipline 
myself  to  say  that  I  won't  do  it.     I  don't  have  any  time  to  do  it. 

I  will  go  off  the  Stanford  board  next  October;  I'll  be  seventy, 
and  we  have  a  seventy  rule,  you  know,  in  the  board.  They  won't,  hear 
from  me  again,  except  as  there  may  be  something  they  want.  I  don't 
want  to  continue  defending  points  that  I  thought  were  important  when 
I  was  there,  you  know.  And  it  would  be  foolish  to  have  any  such  rule 
at  the  Rosenberg  Foundation. 

All  my  life  in  community  work,  the  people  I've  appreciated  have 
been  those  who  would  do  their  Job  as  president,  or  the  top,  and  then 
remove  themselves  so  that  they  aren't  looking  over  your  shoulder. 
When  you  come  in  as  the  next  president,  and  you've  got  somebody  to 
whom  you  have  to  explain  everything  you  do,  it's  a  terrible  burden. 


107 


Charles:  Because,  in  the  meantime,  you  are  explaining  it  to  your  board,  and 
keeping  them  informed.   So  I've  always  done  that. 

I  really  do  not  know  what's  "been  going  on.  Ruth  keeps  in  a  little 
closer  touch,  and  is  very  pleased,  and  thinks  we  made  a  very  good 
choice  when  we  chose.   There  have  been  new  members  elected  to  the  board. 


Selecting  Board  Members 


Morris:   What  are  the  kinds  of  things  that  you  look  for,  over  the  years,  in  a 
board  member? 

Charles:   Oh,  at  Rosenberg? 

Morris:   At  Rosenberg,  yes.  Would  it  be  the  same  kinds  of  things  that  make  a 
good  board  member  in  any  kind  of  a  community — ? 

Charles:  No.  Well,  I  have  always  thought  that  when  you're  trying  to  strengthen 
or  maintain  the  strength  of  an  organization,  you  need  to  make  several 
decisions  about  what  kind  of  an  organization  it  is. 

For  instance,  there  are  certain  organizations  that  are  very 
valuable  for  young  board  members ,  inexperienced  board  members ,  because 
they  can't  do  too  much  damage,  and  they  can  learn  a  lot  about  how  a 
board  is  run.   I  probably  shouldn't  give  examples  of  that  sort  of 
thing,  but  I  will  only  say  that  I  learned  a  great  deal  about  such 
things  in  the  Campfire  Girls.  That  was  one  of  the  first  boards  I  ever 
went  on.   I  was  delighted  to  have  the  experience,  but  we  didn't  have 
an  enormous  budget,  and  our  responsibilities  were  not  of  the  sort  that 
are  so  heavy,  as  they  are  in  a  foundation. 

Morris:   Doesn't  Campfire  Girls  put  a  good  deal  of  effort  into  training  its 

leadership?  Their  board  leadership,  as  well  as  their  group  leaders. 

Charles:  Well,  they  may  now.  This  was  many  years  ago,  and  I  came  on  Just  green, 
I  think.   I  think  I'd  been  a  Girl  Scout  leader,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
and  somebody  invited  me  to  Join.   You  know  the  way  these  things  are — 
a  friendship,  and  somebody  knows  you. 

I  learned  a  lot  on  there,  but  I  think  there  are  certain  kinds  of 
things  that  must  have  experienced  board  members.  University  boards  and 
foundation  boards,  I  think,  need — I  would  almost  use  the  word  'sophisti 
cation'  about  the  way  a  community  works,  and  how  money  needs  to  be 
watched  over — 


Morris:   Closely. 


108 

Charles:  Yes,  that's  right.  And  some  sense  about — because  people  can  be 

incredibly  naive.   I  vas  succeeded  on  a  city  commission  here  in  San 
Francisco  by  a  woman  who  asked  if  she  could  come  and  talk  to  me,  after 
she'd  gone  on  in  my  place. 

We  were  talking  about  various  things  that  took  place,  and  she 


mentioned  some  issue  that  was  coming  before  her,  and  I  said: 
you  feel  as  ill-informed  as  that  you  must  abstain. 

She  said:  What's  that? 


Well,  if 


Morris : 


Charles : 


I  said:  That  means  you  must  not  vote. 

She  said:  But  I  thought  you  had  to  vote,  either  yes  or  no. 

And  I  said:     Well,   of  course  not.      You  don't  have  to  vote,  and 
you  must  decide  that  if  you  really  aren't  well-enough  informed  that 
you're  not  going  to  vote.      Now,   you  can't  do  that  very  often,   or  you 
don't  belong  on  that  board  or  any  board. 

Well,  you  know,  you  ought  to  have  people  on  these  major  boards 
who  at  least  know  a  few  of  the  elementary  rules  of  procedure,  and  what 
their  rights  are  and  are  not,  and  all  of  that  sort  of  thing.  But  that 
[laughs]  really  overwhelmed  me  because,  believe  me,  that  particular 
commission  is  one  where  you  better  know  how  to  abstain,  and  abstain 
every  now  and  then,  when  they  get  you  into  deep  water. 

When  you  get  in  city  commissions,  of  course,  there's  so  much 
politics  in  everything.  And  if  you  begin  to  have  a  hunch  that  this  is 
a  political  issue,  not  the  simple  issue  that  it  appears,  then  you 
better  not  vote.   At  least,  that's  my  rule;  and,  boy,  it  doesn't 
happen  to  me  twice.   Next  time  I  will  know,  because  I  would  begin  more 
and  more  frequently  to  recognize  the  political  issues  that  come  before 
me. 

Or  study  up  on  the  particular  issue  to  find  out  what  all  of  this 
could  be. 


Well,  that's  exactly  right.   Whenever  I  make  what  I  consider  to  be  a 
mistake,  I  always  take  a  great  deal  of  time  to  find  out  what  happened — 
to  me,  not  to  anybody  else.  Why  did  I  make  that  mistake?  What  gaps 
were  there  in  my  information  that  I  should  have  had  before  I  made  the 
decision?  Or  what  did  I  fail  to  know  about  the  board  or  the  purposes 


-I 


Morris : 


To  me,  that  kind  of  exploration  of  yourself  is  not  wasted,  because 
you  always  learn  something  that  applies  to  other  situations,  where  you 
Just  fail  to  do  something  that  had  to  be  done. 

So  that,  in  terms  of  the  Rosenberg  board,  you're  constantly  keeping  an 
eye  out  in  other  organizations  for  who  might  be  a  likely  person? 


109 


Charles:   Oh,  yes.  When  you're  looking  for  a  board  member — I  believe,  the 

purpose  of  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  being  what  it  is,  that  you  really 
need  people  who  know  something  about  the  inner  workings  of  the  community. 
We  actually  are  supposed  to  be  a  state-wide  foundation,  but — I  don't 
know  what  the  statistics  are  as  to  the  location  of  our  grants,  to  tell 
you  the  truth. 


Morris  : 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles 


Morris  : 


Charles 


So  you  try  to  select  some  board  members  who  know  the  state-wide  picture, 
as  well  as  the  Bay  Area? 

Yes.   But  I  really  think  what  you're  doing  in  putting  members  onto  an 
established  board  is  filling  the  gaps  of  knowledge,  experience,  person 
ality,  and  now  race,  which  was  never  an  issue  before.  We'd  really 
never  thought  about  it  at  all  until  the  last  five  or  eight  years. 

Is  this  the  issue  known  as  'representation'? 

I  wouldn't  like  to  call  it  that,  because  I  believe  that  anybody  put  on 
a  board  of  this  sort,  or  a  university  board,  should  be  a  person  who  is 
willing  to  speak  for  himself  or  herself,  and  that  he  doesn't — even 
though,  for  instance,  in  the  university  we  have  alumni  trustees,  they 
are  not  there  to  speak  for  the  alumni.   They're  there  to  speak  for  the 
total  welfare  of  the  university. 

We  don't  want  to  have  that  kind  of  representative  government; 
I've  always  thought  that  our  representatives  in  Congress  should  have 
the  courage  to  still  be  speaking  for  what  they  believe  in,  and  not 
necessarily  going  back  to  the  constituency,  unless  they  think  the 
constituency  knows  the  issues,  and  enough  about  them. 

What  would  happen,  for  example,  if  there  was  a  young  Mexican-American 
or  Asian  on  the  Rosenberg  board — would  their  idea  about  what's  good 
for  the  Foundation  or  the  community  be  different  from  other  members  of 
the  board? 

Well ,  you  see ,  one  of  the  things  that  you  hope  to  do ,  and  one  of  the 
things  that  we  have  accomplished  at  KQED,  about  which  I'm  very  proud — 
when  I  went  in  as  chairman,  we  also  elected  nine  minority  members. 

We  had  a  few  on,  but  we  wanted  to  complete  the  job  of  making  it 
reflect  the  composition  of  KQED's  listening  audience,  which  is  nine 
counties,  and  which  is  about  one-third  minority.  This  strike  has 
demonstrated,  better  than  anything  I've  ever  seen,  the  fact  that  those 
minorities  have  become  members  of  the  board.  Because  they  have  all 
supported  management's  position  on  the  strike,  and  this,  to  me,  is 
very  gratifying. 


110 


Charles:   It's  a  very  hard  thing  to  accomplish,  because  a  great  many  of  the 

minority  people  are  uncertain  about  what  their  role  is,  and  get  into 
trouble,  too.  Because  their  constituents  would  like  to  insist  that 
they  vote  on  every  issue  as  it  reacts  on  that  minority.  But  the  good 
board  members,  and  I  believe  more  and  more  we  are  seeing  them,  are 
going  to  vote  as  to  what  is  good  for  your  job,  whatever  it  may  be  for 
the  organization. 

Herman  Gallegos  came  on  the  Rosenberg  board  just  about  a  year 
before  I  went  off.  Herman  is  a  very  sophisticated  man;  he  is  also  on 
the  KQED  board.   And  he  can  be  accused,  and  is  accused,  by  his  racial 
group,  of  not  doing  or  doing,  or  what  he  ought  to  do,  or  that  sort  of 
thing;  but  he's  well  able  to  deal  with  this  in  a  pretty  diplomatic  way. 
He  has  to  be  diplomatic  about  it. 

But  in  this  strike,  of  course,  the  principle  that  was  at  issue 
was  a  restrictive  contract  on  the  part  of  the  engineers  that  made  it 
impossible  for  us  to  employ  minorities  as  engineers.   They  all  knew 
that.   Our  minorities  all  knew  that  section  of  the  engineers'  contract— 
we  had  decided  we  wouldn't  accept  that  for  renewing  that  contract,  and 
that's  what  started  the  whole  thing. 


Progress  and  Change 


Morris : 


Charles 


Morris : 


Charles : 


That  raises  an  interesting  question.  Have  you,  as  a  member  of  the 
white  establishment,  ever  felt  that  other  members  of  that  white 
establishment  objected  to  your  activities  or  your  views  on  either  the 
Foundation  or  the  other  organizations? 

No.   I'm  amazed  about  that.   I'm  sure  that  I  would  be,  by  anyone  who 
was  very  far  to  the  right;  I  would  be  personally,  because  I  am  not 
part  of  the  right,  and  I  don't  like  those  positions.  But  it  seems 
clear  to  me  that  I  am  not  rejected  on  the  basis  that  I  have  crazy 
sympathies,  too  liberal,  or  anything  of  that  sort.  I  really  believe 
that  to  be  true. 

Or  that  the  Foundation  is  in  territory  where  it  shouldn't  be,  in  its 
grants? 

I  don't  have  any  feeling  that  that  is  said.  Now,  the  only  time  that 
the  Foundation  was  heavily  criticized  was  in  the  field  of  left-Communis 
action,  supporting  Communist  organizations,  which  were  somewhat 
casually  designated,  down  in  the  Valley,  during  our  work  with  the 
migrant  laborers. 

And  we  withstood  that.  Our  board  members  were  excellent.  That 
was  at  a  time  when  we  had  on  the  board  real  establishment  men.  In 


Ill 


Charles:  fact,  the  establishment  at  that  time  was  the  establishment;  now  it 

really  isn't  as  much.   I  mean,  there  were  pretty  hard-core  establish 
ment  people — but  some  of  them,  I  think,  were  in  the  process  of  changing 
themselves. 

There  are  now  what  are  probably  considered  establishment  men  in 
this  Resource  Exchange.  Very  willing  to  listen  to  what  the  kids  have 
to  say,  and  to  try  to  compromise  on  some  of  the  issues  that  bother 
them  the  most — that  sort  of  thing. 

They  got  started  on  the  National  Association  of  Businessmen,  and 
they  really  were  absolutely  unwilling  to  listen  to  anything  good  about 
them. 

Morris:   The  young  half  of  this  group? 

Charles:  Yes.   Because. they  were  in  charge  of  what  they  called  the  NAB  group  of 
jobs.   They  would  organize  the  businessmen,  and  then  get  jobs  for  the 
unemployed  kids.  And  according  to  the  kids,  those  Jobs  were  Just  a 
bunch  of  phonies.  Well,  the  Jobs  weren't  phonies,  but  the  selection 
was  all  pre-made  of  who  was  going  to  get  the  Jobs,  because  they  didn't 
want  trouble-makers,  and  they  had  their  methods,  according  to  the  kids. 

Well,  that  still  isn't  fully  resolved,  but  certainly  the  kids  had 
something  to  talk  about,  but  they  weren't  going  to  listen  to  anything 
good ,  at  all . 

Morris :   I  wonder  if  this  is  in  the  area  of  social  change?  This  is  one  of  the 

phrases  I  find  in  foundation  literature,  and  also  that  foundations  like 
to  be  on  the  edge  of  innovation.   I'm  unclear  about  the  difference 
between  the  leading  edge  and  social  change. 

Charles:  Well,  you  know,  the  foundations  were  viewed  with  great  suspicion  in 
the  sixties,  when  people  became  aware,  through  the  foundations'  own 
literature — Congress  became  aware — that  they  considered  themselves  on 
the  cutting  edge  of  social  change,  as  they  say,  and  Congress  decided 
they  weren't  going  to  have  the  foundations  telling  us  what  we  ought 
to  do.  That  became  a  very  bitter  pill. 

I  have  to  say  that  when  we  made  our  grants,  we  were  not  trying  to 
create  social  change.  We  were  trying  to  make  something  easier  for 
certain  groups  in  the  community,  without  really  giving  much  thought 
that  we  might  be  leading  the  way  for  the  community  to  be  easier  on 
this  group  or  that  group.  That  was  not  what  was  voiced  in  our  meetings. 

Morris:   Or  shift  the  position  of  that  group  in  the  total  society? 
Charles:  Yes.   Now,  Bill  Roth— are  you  going  to  interview  Bill? 
Morris:   Yes. 


112 


Charles:  Good,  because  Bill  likes  to  talk  about  the  counterculture,  and  his 
belief  that  it  should  be  strengthened  and  given  a  chance  to  make 
itself  felt.   And  perhaps  if  the  board  had — but  that's  one  of  the 
advantages  of  what  I  have  expressed  earlier,  that  I  believe  boards  of 
this  sort,  who  get  close  to  the  operation  of  the  foundation  without 
running  it,  but  who,  say,  meet  monthly  (rather  than  quarterly  or  semi- 
annually  and  then  just  rush  through  a  whole  group  of  things) — we  were 
very  much  involved  in  every  grant  we  made,  in  the  sense  that  we  knew 
what  it  was  doing.  Being  lay  people  who  were  not  professional  social 
workers,  we  didn't  think  about  whether  we  were  creating  social  change 
or  not.  We  were  trying  to  look  at  the  crisis  in  society  that  needed 
help,  and  the  people  in  society  who  needed  help,  and  maybe  we  could  do 
this. 

Now,  of  course,  we  were  creating  social  change,  if  that  was  what 
we  wanted  to  talk  about.   It  wasn't  that  anybody  concealed  it  from 
themselves,  either;  I  don't  mean  that  at  all.  But  we  weren't  walking 
around  in  the  grand  manner,  saying  that  we  were  working  for  social 
change.  We  were  talking  about  how  to  use  the  money  at  our  disposal  for 
improving  certain  areas  of  society  where  people — because  we  always  have 
been  concerned  with  groups  of  people — needed  better  opportunities,  or 
better  living  conditions,  or  something  else. 

Morris:   When  it  began  to  be  considered  in  Congress,  and  in  the  various  publi 
cations  on  the  subject,  that  in  total  these  kinds  of  'cutting  edge' 
activities  could  result  in  major  changes  in  society,  did  the  board 
have  any  feeling  that  they  should  draw  back? 

Charles:      Oh,  never.      That  kind  of  generalization  wouldn't  bother  the  board. 

What  bothers  the  board  is  when  they're  directly  accused  in  a  special 
case  of  doing  something  that  is  deleterious  to  maintaining  society  as 
it  is.   I  doubt  if  that  would  really  have  bothered  the  kind  of  people 
then  on  the  board  either,  though  we  never  chose  them  for  that  reason. 
But  we  have  not  been  dedicated  to  wholesale  change. 

I  think  that  a  lot  of  people  are  not  conscious  of  saying  that 
they  want  to  maintain  things  as  they  are  (this  whole  country's  dedi 
cated  to  progress,  though  it  hates  change.   It  likes  progress,  you 
know.   I've  said  that  before);  but  I  think  there  are  some  groups  who 
have  been  warned  by  sociologists  that  if  they  aren't  careful,  they'll 
create  social  change,  which  will  make  it  bad  for  them. 

We've  never  had  people  on  the  board  who  ever  talked  that  way  or 
thought  that  way.  We  have  dealt  with  what  has  come  before  us  as  a 
specific,  where  you  saw  groups  of  underprivileged  children — 

Morris:   On  a  case-by-case — 

Charles:  Yes.  Absolutely  case-by-case,  and  we  haven't  really  added  it  up.  Now 
Ruth  would  have  been  not  so  much  conscious  of  that  as  she  would  have 


113 


Charles:  teen  of  vhole  movements,  like  she  sav  the  street  people  coining  and 

believed  that  we  could  improve  their  condition.  But  they  were  coming, 
not  because  of  anything  we  could  do.  We  couldn't  keep  them  away.  All 
we  could  do  would  be  to  ameliorate  the  situation  in  some  way  and 
observe  it. 

Morris:   And  observe  that  it  was  a  large  number  of  people. 


Charles 


Morris  : 


Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles 


Morris : 


Yes,  a  movement.   I  think  we  did  lead  the  way  for  other  foundations, 
particularly  in  the  area  of  realizing  that  only  the  young  people 
themselves — because  the  old-time  social  workers  were  really  not 
equipped  to  deal  with — and  didn't  want  to — these  new  things  that  came 
along.   They  would  draw  back.  We  only  had  one  or  two:  Traveler's  Aid 
was  something  that  we  gave  a  great  many  grants  to  because  it  seemed 
to — and  did,  of  course — see  these  people  pouring  in,  and  their 
condition. 

Your  observation  was  that  social  workers  generally  were  not  comfortable 
moving  into  this  new  area.  Would  that  apply  also  to  education  and 
health,  do  you  suppose? 

Oh,  I  think  so.   I  think  at  first  the  old-timers — nobody  wants  to 
change  the  way  they  do  things — would  say:  Oh,  these  people  are 
terrible.   You  can't  help  them. 

Well,  that  wasn't  our  business.  Our  business  was  to  find  out  how 
we  could  help  them.  At  least,  that's  the  way  Ruth  Chance  saw  it,  and 
brought  to  us  opportunities  to  do  that.  And  the  thing  that  was 
important  for  us  was  that  it  wouldn't  be  a  terribly  expensive  thing 
we  were  being  asked  to  do.  Maybe  $25,000,  or  even  less,  to  do  some 
thing  unusual  to  help,  you  see. 


It  just  occurred  to  me: 
of  the  grubstake. 


that's  not  dissimilar  to  the  Gold  Rush  idea 


Yes,  yes.  Well,  I  think  you're  quite  right.  That's  very  interesting. 
Of  course,  it  had  to  all  be  spent  on  what  they  asked  for.  Think  of 
the  kinds  of  things  we  do,  for  example:  we  build  housing,  a  little 
bit  of  housing,  you  know?  We  discovered  an  architect  who  knew  some 
thing  about  building  housing  for  migrants  better,  and  so  we  gave  him 
a  little  money.  The  board  was  awfully  good  about  those  things. 

I  think  I  should  stop. 

I  know  you  have  another  appointment.   I  think  the  only  thing  I  haven't 
done  is  given  you  a  chance  to  wind  up  with  what  you  feel  were  the 
successes,  and  failures  if  there  were  any,  of  your  tenure  on  the  board. 


114 


Charles:   Well,  there  were  plenty  of  those;  but  let  me  think  about  that  further, 
and  then  you  can  use  a  little  piece  of  tape  sometime,  if  you  have  a 
little  piece  left  on  there. 

Morris:   All  right.  Fine,  good. 

[A  serious  heart  attack  in  1975  prevented  Mrs.  Charles  from 
completing  her  summary  of  her  foundation  experience ,  but  further 
interviews  are  planned  at  a  later  date  to  record  an  account  of  her 
other  activities,  including  the  Stanford  University  board  of 
trustees  and  public  broadcasting  policy-making.] 


115 


Appendix  -  The  President's  Message,  Rosenberg  Foundation  Annual  Report,  1973 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE 


Q 

^_}ince  1935,  when  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  was  established,  California 
has  grown  from  a  population  of  seven  million  to  nearly  twenty-one  million. 
Its  rural  character  has  given  way  to  urban  concentrations.  The  State  is  the 
scene  of  vast  technological  advances.  Its  unique  combination  of  Spanish- 
background,  Asian,  black  and  white  peoples  with  their  varied  heritages  and 
the  flooding  of  youth  into  the  State  makes  California  especially  conscious  of 
rising  aspirations  which  now  encircle  the  world. 

During  the  three  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  issuance  of  a  tradi 
tional  Rosenberg  Foundation  Report,  the  staff  and  board  have  been  assessing 
these  social  changes  (as  well  as  the  administrative  requirements  of  the  Tax 
Reform  Act  of  1969)  and  their  effects  on  our  granting  program.  In  1972  we 
arrived  at  some  new  policies  which  still  retain  our  traditional  limitation  of 
funding  only  within  California  and  for  the  well-being  of  children  and  youth. 

The  new  policies  recognize  that  current  knowledge  emphasizes  two 
periods  which  are  particularly  significant  in  youthful  lives:  the  earliest  years, 
and  those  of  adolescence  —  an  uncertain  length  of  time  in  which  the  young 
person  attempts  within  the  strong  currents  of  today's  swift  changes  to 
become  an  adult.  Applications  accepted  by  the  Foundation  are  presently 
limited  to  programs  which  meet  certain  criteria  and  relate  to  these  two  stages 
of  development. 

Although  the  Foundation  has  always  been  interested  in  "innovative" 
programs,  artificial,  contrived  or  unnecessary  innovation  has  no  appeal  for 
the  board  of  directors.  Applications  of  traditional  agencies  attempting  to 
break  out  of  obsolete  practices  to  meet  new  circumstances  or  to  make  fresh 
approaches  to  older  but  unsolved  problems  are  welcomed  where  they  come 
within  the  new  guidelines.  But  the  Foundation  also  recognizes  the  legitimacy 
of  supporting  new  institutions  where  these  alternative  forms  have  better 
access  to  a  clientele  or  offer  an  approach  which  merits  demonstration. 

During  the  1960's  and  into  the  1970's  the  Foundation's  board  and  staff 
have  worked  together  to  try  to  sense  the  kinds  of  changes  which  were  taking 
place  because  of  the  upsurge  of  youth  in  the  country's  population.  Granting 
procedures  were  modified  to  give  a  more  hospitable  entry  to  our  young 
applicants.  We  particularly  wanted  to  help  those  who  had  begun  to  help 
themselves,  and  we  hoped  to  be  their  partners  as  they  learned  to  handle  both 
financing  and  programs  responsibly. 


116 


Many  of  these  projects  are  happy  ones  —  exuberant  and  full  of  hope.  But 
the  eloquent  essay  which  constitutes  the  main  portion  of  this  1973  Report  is 
concerned  with  a  serious  social  problem  from  which  society  often  chooses  to 
avert  its  eyes.  Today's  young  transient  -  in  California  and  throughout  the 
country  —  comes  frequently  from  a  background  which  is  spare  both  finan 
cially  and  emotionally.  He  (for  the  large  majority  is  male)  typically  does  not 
have  the  education  or  the  skills  or  work  experience  to  compete  in  a  tight 
labor  market.  He  is  often  a  veteran.  Street  life  ages  him  prematurely  (as  the 
photographs  show).  His  health,  the  possibility  of  his  living  within  the  law  are 
in  jeopardy.  Since  several  of  our  grants  are  attempting  to  deal  with  this 
problem,  we  decided  to  take  a  further  step  and  invite  two  gifted  young 
people  —  one  a  graceful  writer  with  a  scholarly  as  well  as  working  knowledge 
of  his  subject,  and  the  other  a  young  artist  in  photography  -  to  produce  a 
photographic  essay  delineating  the  young  transients'  situation.  We  are  deeply 
grateful  to  our  young  collaborators  for  their  excellent  study. 

Foundations  with  their  limited  money  cannot  hope  to  solve  a  problem  as 
•extensive  and  severe  as  that  of  the  young  transient.  But  small  pilot  programs 
such  as  those  described  in  the  essay  can  begin  the  network  of  services  needed 
both  regionally  and  nationally  to  move  toward  more  comprehensive  solu 
tions.  We  hope  this  essay  can  be  one  factor  in  starting  discussions  among 
foundations  and  government  agencies  which  will  result  in  cooperative  efforts 
to  recognize  the  plight  and  the  promise  of  these  young  transients. 

As  I  leave  the  presidency  and  the  board  I  want  to  acknowledge  with 
affection  and  respect  the  stimulation  and  growth  which  came  from  board 
and  staff  discussions  as  the  Foundation  sought  to  allocate  its  money  wisely, 
guided  by  the  many  advisers  to  whom  we  are  indebted.  Foundations  exist  to 
help  people  of  vision  and  competence  put  their  plans  into  effect  more  easily. 
Among  the  best  recollections  of  these  past  three  years  are  the  conviction  and 
ardor  which  young  people  brought  to  their  work. 

Since  my  own  retirement  from  the  board  coincides  with  that  of  Ruth 
Chance,  our  executive  director  for  the  past  fifteen  years,  it  is  only  fitting 
that  I  express  on  behalf  of  the  board  our  realization  of  what  her  stewardship 
has  meant  to  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  and  to  all  of  those  who  have  been 
recipients  of  her  wisdom  and  courage  in  this  world  of  foundation  operation. 


CAROLINE  M.  CHARLES 

(MRS.  ALLAN  E.CHARLES) 


117 


10.  LECTURER  IN  COMMUNITY  SERVICE,  MILLS  COLLEGE,  1949-1959 


[Interview  4:   19  September  1977 ]## 


Influence  of  President  Lynn  White 


Morris:      We  were  going  to  start  today  with  your  career  at  Mills.   I 

wondered  how  you  came  to  talk  with  Lynn  White  about  teaching 
a  course  in  community  service  at  Mills  College? 

Charles:     Lynn  White  and  I  belonged  to  a  great  many  worthy  organizations  here 
in  San  Francisco  so  I  saw  him  frequently  as  a  friend.  Al  and  I 
have  always  known  him  and  thought  very  highly  of  him.  He's  a 
very  interesting  person,  as  you  know.  At  the  World  Affairs 
Council,  one  day  he  got  me  off  in  a  corner  and  said,  "I  want 
to  talk  to  you  for  a  few  minutes."  He  started  telling  me  at 
some  length  about  how  he'd  thought  for  some  years  that  there 
ought  to  be  a  course  for  seniors  at  Mills  on  doing  the  kind  of 
community  work  that  I  did  and  so  many  of  the  women  I  knew  did. 
He  said  he'd  been  looking  around  to  decide  who  could  do  it,  and 
he'd  been  asking  around,  and  he'd  come  to  the  decision  that  I 
was  the  person  who  could  do  it  if  I  would. 

I  was  absolutely  astounded.   I  had  to  try  and  absorb  into 
my  mind  what  he  was  saying  to  me  because  the  idea  of  being 
entirely  professional  was  the  last  thing  that  would  ever  have 
occurred  to  me.  And  I  said,  "Lynn,  I  don't  have  any  credentials 
for  college  teaching."  And  he  said,  "You  don't  need  them.  A 
college  professor  is  someone  the  president  of  the  university 
thinks  is  qualified  to  teach."  So,  he  said,  "Don't  worry  about 
it.  We  want  to  be  sure  that  the  course  is  academically  sound,  and 
is  challenging  to  the  students." 

And,  of  course,  I  agreed  with  that  because  I  wasn't  going 
to  be  a  party  to  teaching  anything  that  made  me  a  laughing  stock 
on  the  campus.  So,  anyway,  I  came  home  and  thought  about  it,  and 
my  family  all  thought  that  I  had  misunderstood  him,  and  that  it 
was  really  kind  of  a  crazy  idea. 


118 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles : 

Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles : 


Your  family  thought  that  you  had  misunderstood  him? 

Yes,  the  children  and  Al  weren't  sure  what  I  was  talking  about. 
It  never  crossed  their  minds  that  I  knew  enough  to  teach 
anything. 

Was  it  the  World  Affairs  Council  particularly,  and  the  kind  of 
work  that  they  were  doing,  that  Dr.  White  thought  would  be — ? 

No,  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  that.  It  was  just  that  he  had  been 
thinking,  as  he  always  was,  and  he  wrote  several  books  about  that 
time  about  educating'  girls.*  He  thought  that  all  girls  should  be 
inspired  to  do  the  kinds  of  community  work  that  certain  women  did 
already.  But  that  a  lot  of  them  might  not  realize  how  important 
it  was. 

How  old  were  your  daughters  at  that  time? 

They  were  not  college  age  yet.   They  were  in  high  school,  I 
think. 

Had  you  thought  about  this  at  all  in  relation  to  your  own 
daughters? 

No,  no.   They  were  not  the  same  kind  of  girls.  He  was  thinking 
particularly  of  young  women  at  Mills,  about  what  they  could  learn 
to  help  put  their  education  to  work  much  closer  to  home.   I 
didn't  see  any  evidence  of  that  need  in  my  own  girls.  Then  there 
were  the  other  kinds  that  were  worrying  him  who  didn't  think  there 
was  any  objective  in  life  but  to  get  married.   There  was  a  lot 
of  that  then  because  it  was — 

Right  after  World  War  II. 

Yes.   And  they  felt,  I  suppose,  that  sense  of  desperation,  that 
all  the  young  men  were  disappearing  and  how  were  they  going  to 
find  a  husband. 

Yes.   That's  right,  World  War  II  was  just  over,  and  while  you 
were  teaching  we  were  involved  in  the  Korean  conflict. 


Let  me  see.   I  went  over  there  and  started  teaching  in  '48. 
it  certainly  was  an  aftermath  of  the  other  war,  that  still 
carried  over  to  the  young  ladies. 


But 


Educating  Our  Daughters;  A  Challenge  to  the  Colleges, 
Lynn  Townsend  White,  Harper,  1950. 


119 


Morris:      Dr.  White  was  concerned  that  some  of  his  students  never  thought 
of  using  what  they  learned  at  Mills  close  to  home? 

Charles:     Yes.  They  didn't  realize  how  much  the  community  benefited  by 

what  a  woman  could  do.   I  was  pleased  when  he  told  me  that  he'd 
asked  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  who  of  the  next  younger  group  he  should 
approach,  and  she  had  recommended  me.  He  quoted  her  as  saying, 
"As  a  person  who  would  welcome  the  idea  of  thinking  about  why 
she  was  doing  what  she  was  doing."  Because  I  was  doing  a  lot 
of  volunteer  work. 

Morris:      Had  you  ever  talked  with  him  about  what  you  were  doing  in 
community  work? 

Charles:     No.   But  he  was  quite  an  acute  observer,  you  know,  and  he  knew 

a  lot  more  than  you  thought  about  what  was  going  on  in  different 
places . 

Morris :      You  said  you  and  he  were  members  of  a  number  of  the  same 

organizations.  How  did  he  find  the  time  to  belong  to  a  number 
of  organizations  and  run  Mills  College? 

Charles:     Well,  he  was  very  well  liked.  Most  people  who  were  involved  in 

the  teaching  profession,  or  even  the  academic  world,  never  venture 
out  into  the  local  community.   It's  a  great  deprivation  to  the 
community  that  they  don't.   Lynn  is  much  more  perceptive  than 
most  academic  people  I  know,  and  he  exacted  from  himself  what 
he  thought  academic  people  could  be  doing,  I  think. 

The  World  Affairs  Council  had  been  a  pioneer  in  the  art 
of  persuading  the  college  professors  to  come  over  and  use  their 
skills  in  teaching — let's  not  use  the  word  "teaching" — consorting 
with  the  average  citizen,  so  that  when  the  question  of  governmental 
problems  or  foreign  affairs  came  up,  they  coild  speak  of  it  with 
some  academic  background  that  would  increase  the  knowledge  of  the 
citizen. 

Morris:      Was  the  World  Affairs  Council  at  all  sending  speakers,  say,  over 
to  Mills  as  resources  to  classes  and  things  like  that? 

Charles:     Perhaps.   But  Mills  and  U.C.  and  Stanford  professors  were  coming 
over  and  becoming  part  of  the  World  Affairs  Council  operation. 
The  council  was  planned  on  a  basis  of  study  groups,  you  know,  and 
we  needed  people  to  conduct  them  who  were  skillful  and 
knowledgeable.   It  was  all  volunteer  work,  there  was  no  pay 
involved.   But  it  worked  extremely  well. 

Morris:      It  must  have.   I  had  read  a  study  that  a  graduate  student  at 

Cal  did  on  the  first  years  of  the  World  Affairs  Council;  it  really 


120 


Morris:      impressed  me  as  to  the  variety  of  activities.* 

Charles:     Exactly,  they  really  did.   It  was  marvellous.  It  was  a  revival 
in  a  way  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations.  Those  people 
who  had  been  closely  involved  with  that  were  the  ones  who  realized 
that  there  ought  to  be  some  kind  of  an  organization  concerning 
itself  with  foreign  affairs  in  the  local  community.  And  got  to 
work  on  this,  and  managed  to  get  some  of  us  younger  ones  to  come 
in. 

Morris:      Were  you  doing  some  of  the  study  sessions? 

Charles:     Oh,  no.   I  was  at  the  other  end.   I  was  always  the  person  with 
organizational  skills,  and  administrative  skills,  aid  I  would 
organize  groups  to  carry  on  these  things.   [Mrs.  Charles  added 
the  following  passage  when  reviewing  the  transcript] 

Dorothy  Rogers,  Vern  Williams,  Lister  Rogers,  was  the 
organizing  spirit  for  the  W.A.C. — she  would  gather  some  of 
us  together  to  help  in  preparing  lunches  for  the  noon  meetings 
of  the  fledgling  Council.   Dorothy  had  her  own  style  (as  do 
all  good  organizers)  and  I  want  to  mention  that  in  these 
activities  the  chief  organizer  should  not  be  challenged.  Of 
course,  ideas  are  welcomed,  but  not  a  complete  takeover. 
Every  person  who  has  an  organizing  place  is  not  able  to 
put  it  all  into  words.  He  or  she  needs  to  carry  it  out  with 
corrections  and  embellishments  that  strike  her  as  right  as  you 
go  along.  And  so  with  Dorothy.   I  did  her  dirty  work  and  swept 
out  and  washed  dishes  (something  I  hated  to  do  at  home). 

Dorothy's  lunches  were  delicious,  roasts — something  that 
a  business  man  (whom  we  wanted  to  attract  to  the  Council)  could 
tuck  away  and  feel  well  fed  and  come  again.   It  was  always  a 
goal  for  these  voluntary  efforts  to  pull  in  as  many  men  as 
possible  as  if  that  were  the  crowning  success — we  were 
different — in  those  days  in  our  first  efforts  at  women's 
freedom,  so  to  speak,  we  believed  in  and  liked  men,  we  wanted 
them  with  us  in  our  efforts — at  any  rate,  Dorothy's  creative 
lunches  were  successful,  and  it  wasn't  long  until  it  was  possible 
to  hire  a  cook  for  the  Council  (which  relied  heavily  on  food  at  its 
meetings)  with  volunteers  doing  the  serving  and  clearing.  This 
was  an  important  part  of  the  Center's  growth  and  success! 


"World  Affairs  Are  Your  Affairs,"  Judson  A.  Grenier,  submitted 
in  partial  satisfaction  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of 
Master  of  Journalism,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  1954. 


121 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 


[Transcript  resumes] 

So,  how  did  you  decide  that  you  would  do  the  course  for  Len 
White? 

Well,  it  interested  me  enormously,  and  I  always  like  to  try  my  hand 
at  something  new  if  I  can.   It  was  a  marvellous  chance  for  me  as 
a  housewife  to  come  out  of  the  kitchen  and  have  an  experience  in 
a  classroom  again,  for  instance.  I  had  taught  for  a  year  in  a 
junior  high  school  in  Stockton  where  I  went  home  during  the  year 
I  was  waiting  when  Al  and  I  were  going  to  be  married  the  next 
year. 

You  liked  that  experience? 

Well,  I  had  a  strange  experience.   I  don't  want  to  use  up  our  time 
on  it  because  it  really  isn't  very  relevant.   But,  the 
superintendent  of  schools  in  Stockton  was  very  resentful  of  my 
getting  engaged  or  married.  He  didn't  approve  of  it  at  all. 
And  so,  when  he  heard  that  having  found  a  place  for  me  in  the 
city  schools  that  I  had  then  gotten  engaged  he  came  and  took  my 
poor  father  over  the  coals  about  my  bad  behavior  in  doing  that. 
We  have  forgotten  those  days  when  marriage  was  such  a  flagrant 
outrage  as  far  as  a  working  career  went,  and  teachers  weren't 
allowed  to  marry  for  a  long  time.  Just  like  stewardesses,  as 
we  have  seen.   It  just  seems  incredible. 

He  expected  you  to  stay  in  Stockton  and  teach  forever. 

Exactly.  And  he  felt  that  I  had  taken  somebody's  place  as  a 
teacher  in  Stockton,  a  natural  feeling. 

Did  Dr.  White  just  turn  you  loose  with  the  class? 

Yes,  he  never  interfered  with  it.  And  I  realized  it  was  a  very 
valuable  experience  for  me,  even  though  I  did  not  know  of  course 
that  I  was  going  to  be  a  Stanford  trustee  some  day.  When  I  was, 
I  knew  exactly  how  the  professors  felt  about  having  any 
interference  from  anybody  as  to  what  they  taught.   It  was  their 
integrity  in  teaching  a  subject — any  subject — that  shouldn't, 
be  interfered  with,  One  had  that  feeling  very  strongly. 


Theory  and  Practice  of  Volunteering 


Morris:      How  did  you  go  about  preparing  that  first  course? 

Charles:     What  I  did  was  to  start  thinking  about  what  made  you  valuable  as 


122 


Charles:     a  community  person.  What  things  you  might  emphasize  with 

college  seniors  about  to  go  out  in  the  world,  that  they  could 
start  learning  in  college.  And  I  then  really  divided  it  into 
five  segments;  not  segments  to  be  taught  in  sequence,  but  five 
topics  to  be  covered  as  you  went  along.   I  felt  they  ought  to 
know  something  about  the  history  of  volunteer  work,  and  they 
ought  to  know  something  about  the  history  of  women,  and  the 
problems  that  women  have  faced  and  are  facing  in  gaining 
independence.   I  felt  they  ought  to  know  how  city  government 
is  organized,  and  they  ought  to  have  some  idea  about  kinds  of 
organizations  that  work  in  the  community. 

Morris:      What  we  now  call  the  private  sector? 

Charles:     Yes.   Let  me  see,  I  thought  they  ought  to  be  very  careful  to  be 
aware  of  their  own  situations,  too,  in  how  much  work  they  should 
take  on,  and  how  it  wouldn't  interfere  with  their  family  life 
because,  as  I  pointed  out  to  them,  husbands  are  all  different, 
and  some  could  tolerate  a  lot  of  that  and  some  couldn't  tolerate 
any  of  it.  And  they  would  have  to  go  at  it  very  carefully  to  see 
where  their  husbands  fitted  into  the  picture;  and  to  be  absolutely 
honest  abouttheir  own  available  time  and  energy,  in  order  not  to 
deprive  their  homes  of  what  they  really  owed  to  them,  or  had 
promised  when  they  got  married.  You  see,  I  was  old-fashioned. 

Morris:      Were  the  girls  in  the  class  primarily  ones  who  were  already 
engaged  and  thinking  in  terms  of  marriage  immediately? 

Charles:     No.  Many  of  them  went  on —  I  haven't  really  had  a  wide 

experience  of  hearing  from  them,  but  occasionally  I  do.  Many 
of  them  never  married,  but  went  on  in  community  careers  on  the 
side  of  being  employed.   It  may  have  been  changed  to  some 
extent  what  they  chose  to  make  their  life's  work. 

Morris:      Did  you  see  it  as  kind  of  a  counseling  relationship? 

Charles:     Yes,  I  really  did.  You  see,  I  planned  the  course  so  that  they 
would  spent  at  least  one  day  a  week  in  doing  actual  volunteer 
work  somewhere  in  Oakland  where  it  was  near  enough  to  the  college 
that  they  could  go  and  get  a  little  supervision  and  learn  what 
it  was  all  about.   Before  the  year  started  I  went  around  in  Oakland 
to  see  the  agencies — because  I  know  San  Francisco  well,  you  know, 
but  I  did  not  know  what  Oakland  had  to  offer,  and  Berkeley. 
And  so  I  found  different  organizations  that  would  be  willing  to  let 
the  students  come  in,  and  seemed  to  me  to  understand  something  about 
how  you  use  volunteers,  which  is  important  too. 

Morris:      I  should  say  so.  Which  organizations  did  you  find — ? 

Charles:     I  will  generalize.  One  was  a  child-caring  institution  of  some  sort 


123 


Charles:     (I've  forgotten  which  one),  and  also,  I  think,  those  having  to  do 
with  young  children  were  likely  to  be  the  most  available.  One 
thing  I  wanted  to  teach  my  volunteers  was  that  they  had  the  right 
as  volunteers  to  be  able  to  state  well  in  advance  how  much  time 
they  had  to  give  and  have  it  understood  that  they  would  not  be 
imposed  on  for  more  time  than  they  had  available.   Because  this 
would  always  be  their  problem.  Most  volunteers  don't  think  it 
through  well  enough  in  advance.  They'll  take  on  a  volunteer  job, 
and  then  in  the  middle  decide  it  is  too  much  for  them  without 
having  warned  anybody  that  they  might  not  be  able  to  do  it, 
and  making  enemies  for  themselves  and  for  volunteers  in  general. 

[Mrs.  Charles  added  the  following  passage  when  reviewing 
the  transcript]  One  thing  I  always  tried  to  emphasize  to  the 
class  was  the  need  to  do  or  not  do.   Right  now  I  am  reading  a 
most  marvellous  book  re  that  subject  entitled  The  Life  of  the  Mind 
by  Hannah  Arendt.*  It  is  most  exciting  to  me  when  I  find  an 
academic  person  affirming  their  own  day  to  day  observations.   I 
used  to  say  to  the  students,  "You  do  not  graduate  from  college 
in  order  to  gain  freedom  from  thinking."  Everything  you  do, 
every  person  you  meet,  benefits  from  the  thought  you  give  to 
what  you  are  doing.  Life  itself,  your  personal  relations,  and 
your  community  relations  deserve  as  much  thought  as  does  ancient 
history  or  chemistry  or  physics,  or  whatever  thought  seems  to  be 
logically  expanded  on  in  college.  Miss  Arendt  makes  a  very 
interesting  point — in  fact  many  of  them.  But  I  was  taken  by  her 
separation  of  the  word  con-science  which  she  analyzes  as 
weaving  one's  own  understanding  and  belief  into  con-science — is 
what  I  believe  I  have  always  tried  to  do,  to  make  a  thought  or 
a  purpose  my  own  before  asceeding  to  it.  Miss  Arendt,  who  came 
to  this  concern  by  reason  of  observing  the  Eichmann  trial  in 
Germany  and  realizing  that  he  had  evidently  given  no  thought  at 
all  to  the  things  that  he  did  under  orders.  She  wonders  if  "evil" 
is  really  the  observer  of  thought  before  action. 

[Transcript  resumes] 

That's  a  very  tricky  relation,  I  think. 

Very  difficult,  but  it  needs  to  be  thought  about  a  good  deal. 
And  then  I  used  my  San  Francisco  relationships  to  have  people  I 
knew  well  and  who  had  been  in  the  work  for  years  come  over  and 
talk  to  the  students  about  what  they  had  been  doing.   I  don't 
know  whether  you  remember  Alice  Griffith — 

Morris:      The  Telegraph  Hill  Neighborhood  Association. 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Har court  Brace  Jovanovich,  1978. 


124 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles; 

Morris: 


The  Telegraph  Hill,  and  her  friend  Miss  Elizabeth  Ashe. 
Yes.   1  had  a  number,  of  course,  of  amusing  anecdotes  from 
the  class,  and  one  was:  I  had  explained  to  the  students  that 
Miss  Elizabeth  Ashe  had  decided  early  in  her  career  in  trying 
to  organize  the  child  and  family  welfare  centers  in  Telegraph 
Hill,  that  she  needed  more  training.   She  thought  she  needed 
nurse's  training,  she  told  the  students.   She  was  about  thirty 
when  she  and  Miss  Griffith  started  all  this  work — and  she  went 
back  to  school  for  a  couple  of  years  and  became  a  nurse  in  order 
to  have  that  credential,  in  order  to  know  what  she  was 
recommending  for  these  people. 

Whenever  I  would  have  my  community  workers  over  to  talk 
to  the  students,  I  would  spend  the  next  session  of  class,  part 
of  it,  in  asking  for  student  reactions  to  the  talks.  And  at 
that  time  one  of  the  students  said,  "Mrs.  Charles,  when  that 
lady  said  she  went  back  to  study  being  a  nurse  when  she  was 
thirty,  I  said  to  myself,  it's  never  too  late!"   [Laughs]  And 
I  said  to  her,  "Well,  that's  a  good  thing  for  you  to  observe 
and  remember.   It  is  never  too  late  to  learn  what  you  think  you 
need  to  know." 

The  women  who  started  the  Telegraph  Hill  Association  were  not 
professionally  trained? 

They  were  college- trained,  yes.  And  you  know,  I  look  back — 
I  think  I'm  finally  going  to  write  that  book  on  volunteer 
work  that  Lynn  White  had  begged  me  to  write  when  I  was  teaching 
over  there.   Right  now,  in  the  present,  some  young  women  have 
come  to  me  to  find  out  what  to  do  because  they  say  they  can't 
get  volunteers  the  way  they  used  to.   They  think  something's 
gone  out  of  it.  My  age  group  that  started  their  volunteer  work 
in  the  '30s  and  '40s  did  not  realize  how  closely  on  the  heels 
we  were  of  those  women  of  passion  and  dedication,  those  young 
college  women  of  the  '90s  who  got  the  first  taste  of  freedom; 
it  all  went  with  that  I  think.   To  me,  the  '90s  and  the  early 
part  of  this  century  with  the  wasp  waists — which  we  know  were 
not  good  for  anybody's  health  but  were  one  of  the  very 
attractive  ways  for  women  to  dress — the  pompadour  and  the  rather 
fluffy  clothes.   They  were  a  gay,  attractive  lot. 

They  were  also  the  suffragettes — 

Indeed  they  were,  looking  for  the  vote.  And  California  had 
gotten  the  vote,  you  know,  earlier  than  anybody  else  did.   It 
was  1911. 

You're  right,  California  got  the  vote  for  women  before  the  rest 
of  the  country. 


125 


Charles:      Many  years  before  the  rest,  and  this  made  the  young  women  here, 
I  think,  feel  their  freedom  even  more  to  go  out  and  take  part  in 
the  life  of  the  city,  and  try  to  reform  the  government  where 
they  thought  that  needed  to  be  done,  or  to  find  new  means  of 
caring  for  the  poor,  or  the  deprived.  And  they  formed  their  own 
organizations — nothing  stopped  them.  What  they  had  was  passion. 
When  I  used  to  be  making  my  speeches  on  volunteer  work,  I 
loved  to  quote  a  phrase  I  found  in  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes' 
letters,  "The  action  and  passion  of  our  times,  to  be  part  of 
the  action  and  the  passion  of  our  times." 

That  was  the  way  I  felt  aboutit  when  I  went  into  it,  that 
I  was  a  part  of  the  action  and  the  passion.   But  I  was  talking 
to  my  daughter  Jean  about  it,  and  Jean  said,  "Mother,  the 
passion's  gone  out  of  it."   She  said,  "I  remember  you  when  you 
were  doing  it,  you  did  feel  passionately  about  what  you  were 
doing."  And  although  we  didn't  start  as  many  new  organizations 
as  those  women  did,  we  adopted  their  feelings  as  soon  as  we  got 
involved  in  the  community,  child-caring  institutions  or  into 
struggles  with  the  city  government. 

Mrs.  McLaughlin  had  a  marvellous  story  about — I  can  just 
visualize  her  as  a  young  woman,  all  of  them,  so  beautiful,  you 
know,  and  thrilled  with  life  because  of  their  freedom  of 
having  gotten  into  college  and  out  again  with  their  college 
education.   They  were  able  to  conquer  the  world,  having  the 
vote  and  having  accomplished  that  which  was  moving  along  here 
in  the  West,  in  California,  for  a  long  time,  and  finally  came 
to  fruition  with  the  passage  of  women's  right  to  vote.* 

Morris:       That  spirit  carried  on  through  your  generation,  and  then  what 
happened  to  it? 

Charles:      And  now  it  looks  as  if  what  we  talked  about —  You  know,  there 
is  something  spiritual  that  goes  into  the  work  of  volunteers, 
some  sense  of  fulfilling  your  purpose  on  earth,  whatever  it 
may  be.   William  James,  and  many,  many  theologians,  philosphers, 
and  psychologists,  in  trying  to  analyze  why  people  do  what  they 
do,  realize  that  dedicated  daily  work  must  be  attached  to  some 
feeling  within  yourself  of  more  permanent  part  of  yourself  that 
is  being  satisfied,  by  doing  this  work.   Not  just  what  the 
practical  results  are.  And  that  love  is  an  important  part 
of  it. 


See  Emma  Moffat  McLaughlin,  A  Life  in  Community  Service, 
Regional  Oral  History  Office,  The  Bancroft  Library,  1970. 


126 


Charles:      I  haven't  really  thought  it  through  yet,  but  so  many  young 
people  will  say,  "Why  should  I  vote?  They  never  elect  the 
person  I  vote  for."  Well,  the  point  is  we  didn't  measure  it 
that  way  in  our  generation.  We  voted — we  did  what  needed  to 
be  done,  and  took  our  part  in  democratic  government,  which 
can't  exist  unless  all  citizens  take  their  part.  And  whether 
the  person  was  elected  or  not  (of  course  it  was  disappointing 
if  he  weren't),  at  least  we  have  fulfilled  our  obligation  to  be 
citizens  and  do  our  work. 

I  think  we  transmitted  that  sense  without  being  so 
specific  about  it,  because  Americans,  and  perhaps  not  only 
Americans,  hate  to  talk  about  spiritual  values,  you  know.   It 
embarrasses  them,  they  always  sound  and  feel  hypocritical. 
Also,  we're  conscious  of  note  seeming  to  have  any  religious 
aspect  to  what  we're  doing  for  fear  that  we  would  be  accused 
of  involving  ourselves  in  trying  to  proselyte  different  religions. 
So  we  steer  clear  of  that  always.  We  talk  around  it. 

When  I  would  make  my  speeches  I  wouldn't  talk  directly  about 
satisfying  spiritual  needs  by  doing  volunteer  work,  but  I  would 
say  then,  our  own  woman's  natures  seem  to  require  of  us  that  we 
give  part  of  ourselves  to  others  if  we're  going  to  be  happy. 
And  we  would  find  that  we  suffered  if  we  didn't  do  that.   I 
believed  that,  and  my  observations  concurred,  many  people  are 
unhappy  who  don't  know  what's  the  matter  with  themselves  at 
all. 

Morris:       In  the  years  that  you  were  teaching  at  Mills,  could  you  talk 
about  the  spiritual  values  without  having  the  girls  in  the 
class  look  embarrassed? 

Charles:      Yes.   They  weren't  embarrassed,  but  I  didn't  talk  about  it  in 
that  way.   I  talked  about  our  own  inner  needs.   I  used  to  have 
a  very  amusing  time  in  class  because  we'd  get  into  long  arguments 
about  such  ridiculous  things  as — I  would  say,  "Well,  of  course, 
when  you're  bringing  up  your  own  children,  they're  all  different." 
Some  student  would  say,  "Oh,  Mrs.  Charles,  that's  not  correct. 
I  learned  just  this  morning  in  a  child-development  class  that 
the  same  parents  are  bringing  them  up  and  they're  really  not 
all  different."  I  would  say,  "Well,  you  write  me  when  you  have 
children  and  tell  me  whether  they  are  or  not.   That's  all, 
you  just  prove  it  yourself."  It  seemed  in  their  child 
development  class,  which  they  were  probably  misintepreting, 
they  understood  that  the  same  treatment  on  the  part  of  the 
parents  would  have  the  same  effect  on  each  child. 

When  I  thought  of  myself  teaching  I  thought,  "My  word,  I 
just  don't  know  enough."  But  of  course,  the  first  thing 


127 


Charles:      you  find  is  that  simply  having  lived  twenty  years  longer  than 
these  young  people  you  know  enough  to  teach  them  a  few  things. 
But,  of  course,  I  didn't  leave  it  at  that.   I  had  prepared  myself 
well  with  the  kinds  of  things  I  wanted  them  to  learn. 

Morris:       Was  it  primarily  the  theory  of  volunteer  organization  in  the 
community,  or  was  it  the  practical — ? 

Charles:      It  was  both  ends  of  it.  That  was  what  I  was  trying  to  combine: 
the  feeling  for  what  they  would  get  from  it  and  what  they  could 
do.   I  wanted  them  to  know  that  the  city  can't  get  along  without 
their  help,  the  citizen's  help,  and  that  the  citizen  really 
can't  get  along  without  giving  that  help.   And  I  can  say,  I 
have  no  sympathy  with  anybody  who  comes  to  me  complaining  about 
what  government  does.  When  I  ask  if  they  have  attempted  to  do 
anything  about  it,  "Oh,"  they  say,  "What's  the  use  of  attempting 
to  do  anything  about  it.  What's  the  use.  Oh,  no."  If  that's 
what  they  say,  then  I  don't  intend  to  waste  my  energy  on  them. 

When  you  have  organizations  like  the  League  of  Women  Voters 
and  other  organizations  that  take  an  interest  in  government  at 
any  and  every  level,  you  have  no  excuse  for  not  making  your  own 
wishes  known.   But,  of  course,  your  wish  alone  isn't  enough. 
You  have  to  find  if  there  are  others  who  feel  as  you  do.   And 
see  if  you  all  can  work  together.   "You  have  to  use  your 
common  sense,"  that's  what  I  keep  saying  to  them,  about  how 
to  get  these  things  done. 

' 

I  really  had  a  most  enjoyable  time.   You  know,  just  being 
with  young  people  is  an  invigorating  experience. 

Morris:       How  many  young  women  would  have  signed  up  for  a  course  like 
this?   Brand  new  in  the  college. 

Charles:      I  was  awfully  lucky  because  I  always  had  small  classes  like 
fifteen  or  twenty.   Mills  was  a  smallish  school,  and  many  of 
the  classes  were  very  small.  But  mine,  where  I  had  to  do 
something  personal  for  each  girl,  such  as  getting  her  placed 
in  a  volunteer  agency,  were  smaller. 

Morris:       And  supervising  the  placement. 

Charles:      Yes,  in  a  congenial  atmosphere  for  her  volunteer  work,  and  seeing 
where  she  was  in  her  thinking.  That  took  considerable  time. 
You  know,  Mills  has  a  great  many  students  from  other  nations. 
The  State  Department  was  very  anxious  to  get  these  students 
into  college  and  to  get  them  through.   They  brought,  for 
instance,  a  great  many  Asiatic  young  women  who  were  in  our 
courses  at  Mills.   And  I  remember  a  beautiful  young  woman  from 
Burma  wno  just  could  not  see  what  the  point  of  volunteer 


128 


Charles:      work  was.  You  could  see  that  she  came  from  a  very  wealthy 
family.   I  got  very  exercised  about  the  language  difficulty 
because  they  couldu't  understand — they  could  understand  the 
English  but  they  couldn't  understand  the  meaning  of  what  you 
were  saying.  And  I  would  try  to  tell  them  what  I  was  talking 
about,  realizing  I  wasn't  getting  across  at  all  because  it  was 
so  different  from  anything  they  knew. 

Morris:       In  Asia  there  has  been  little  volunteer  effort  as  we  know  it. 
Is  that  correct? 

Charles:      Yes,  I  believe  so.   It's  something  they  don't  understand. 

And  I  would  say,  when  you're  a  real  volunteer,  you  would 
do  anything.   If  you  had  to  sweep  out  the  place,  as  I  did  when 
the  World  Affairs  Council  started — 

Morris:       Is  this  kind  of  a  basic  operating  principle?  In  order  to  run 

an  organization,  you  have  to  be  willing  to  do  all  the  chores — ? 

Charles:      Well,  I  think  in  order  to  be  a  decent  volunteer  you  have  to. 
I  often  was  asked  to  come  in  to  some  voluntary  organization 
at  the  top,  and  I  would  always  decline.   I  would  explain  to 
them  I  wanted  only  to  come  in  if  I  felt  that  I  were  fully 
apprised  of  their  activities,  and  I  could  go  in  as  a  volunteer 
in  their  day-to-day  operations. 

Morris:       The  girls  who  came  to  your  class,  by  and  large  had  they  had  any 
kind  of  volunteer  experience? 

Charles:      Some  of  them  had  done  quite  a  little  bit  in  high  school, 

wherever  they  came  from.   One  of  the  things  I  always  asked 
them  to  do  was  to  write  me  a  paper  on  their  own  home  town 
and  what  there  was  to  be  done  there  and  whether  they  had 
ever  had  any  experience.   It  was  surprising  how  much  they 
had  done.   I  don't  think  it  was  called  volunteer  work.   It  was 
certainly  the  all-pervading  feeling  of  putting  effort  into  what 
you  believed  in.  And  I  should  say  that  I  think  the  word 
"volunteerism"  is  just  too  hideous  to  be  used. 

[Mrs.  Charles  added  the  following  passage  when 
reviewing  the  transcript]  The  word  "volunteerism"  places 
the  emphasis  wrongly.   I  have  often  expressed  my  indignation 
at  being  called  "a  professional  volunteer."  Its  implication 
is  that  one  buzzes  around  doing  so-called  volunteer  work, 
whether  it  is  needed  or  not,  and  whether  you  understand  what 
you  are  doing!   Of  course  you  can  be  a  perpetual  "do-gooder," 
not  an  endearing  term  and  that  is  why  I  continually  try  to 
remind  community  workers  that  they  must  think  about  what  they 


129 


Charles:      are  doing  and  bring  con-science  to  it,  in  the  sense  that 
Hannah  Arendt  expresses  it.   Sometimes  people  who  try  to 
analyze  from  the  outside  in,  have  a  hard  time  understanding 
the  true  motivatiou  of  certain  activities. 

What  is  very  necessary  is  that  when  we  believe  there  is 
a  need  to  be  met,  then  some  organizing  skills  are  needed  to 
make  it  work.   For  instance,  one  of  the  newest  of  our 
voluntary  efforts  has  been  in  the  area  of  assistance 
inside  the  public  schools.  The  School  Resource  Volunteers, 
as  they  are  called  here  in  San  Francisco,  have  been  able  to 
assist  in  the  classrooms  because  of  preliminary  work  to 
enlist  the  cooperation  and  support  of  teachers  and  administrators 
that  has,  I  believe,  gained  their  confidence  in  the  ability  of 
citizen-volunteers  to  assist  them  without  conflict.   They  make 
every  effort  to  ensure  that  everyone  understands  that  the 
primary  responsibility  in  the  classroom  is  the  teacher's. 

The  organization  is  a  buffer  between  the  volunteer  and 
the  institution,  and  can  be  very  important  in  that  role.  But 
the  idea  that  the  volunteer  is  accumulating  "brownie  points" 
to  gain  a  more  distinguished  role  is  a  poor  one  and  such 
volunteers  need  to  be  concerned  lest  they  destroy  their  own 
success. 


[Transcript  resumes] 
Morris:       Have  you  got  a  new  name  for  volunteering? 

Charles:      I  really  haven't  but  I  think  it  ought  to  be  something  to  do 

with  citizenship,  good  citizenship.   Because  volunteerism,  or 
volunteer  work,  is  not  just  the  act  of  going  into  some  place 
and  donating  your  time.   It's  first  having  some  understanding 
of  why  you  are  doing  that.   And  it's  just  go  so  they  analyze 
and  codify  it  to  death.   They've  got  all  the  rules  of  behavior 
you  need,  and  that  sort  of  thing,  whereas  there's  no  attempt 
to  understand  what  it's  all  about  and  where  it  came  from. 

Morris:       I  guess  you're  thinking  of  things  like  folding  bandages  or 
wheeling  the  cart  of  orange  juice. 

Charles:      No — I  mean  any  kind.   Any  kind  of  day-to-day  volunteer  work 
is  filled  with  irritations.   After  all,  you're  dealing  with 
human  beings,  and  you  have  to  have  some  feeling  of  love  for 
your  fellow  man  that  makes  you  want  to  do  these  things.   And 
your  sense  of  your  own  fortunate  position  is  important.   That's 
why  volunteers  need  to  be  brought  together  periodically  to 
discuss  what  they're  doing  and  why. 


130 


Cnaries:      When  I  used  to  be  working  in  the  San  Francisco  General  Hospital, 
we  had  a  marvelous  director  of  volunteers,  a  wonderful  woman, 
Mrs.  Clifton,  who  was  so  full  of  love  you  couldn't  see  her 
coming  down  the  corridor  without  realizing  what  it  must 
mean  to  some  of  those  really  deprived  people  to  come  in  and 
see  this  lovely,  warm  face  and  demeanor,  and  ambience,  coming 
towards  them.   Everything  she  did  out  there  conveyed  that;  it 
was  perfectly  lovely.  Many  of  these  patients  didn't  know  or 
hadn't  known  for  a  long  time  what  a  feeling  of  caring  or  love 
was.   They'd  never  had  it  anywhwere.   There  she  was.  Now, 
many  people  aren't  able  to  do  that  sort  of  thing,  you  have  to 
do  what  you  can  do.  Work  within  the  limitations  of  your  own 
ability. 

That's  why  it's  very  important  when  you  agree  to  do  a 
volunteer  job  to  say,  "I  want  to  reserve  for  myself  the 
opportunity,  the  ability  to  be  able  to  say  to  you,  'This  is  not 
for  me.   I  would  like  to  try  another  aspect  of  what  you're 
doing  here.'"  So,  the  interviewers  in  voluntary  organizations, 
if  the  volunteer  herself  doesn't  understand  that  they'll  have 
to  make  it  clear  to  her  that  they  know  that  they  might  give 
her  things  that  were  not  agreeable  to  her  temperament,  and 
that  she  would  have  to  come  and  tell  them  and  try  something 
else,  and  see  what  was  better. 

Morris:       I'm  interested  that  you  included  knowing  something  about 
government  in  the  major  things  you  taught. 

Charles:      Oh,  you  bet.   Because  city  government —  Often  your 

dissatisfactions  with  what  is  going  on  in  your  community 
go  back  to  the  government,  and  an  understanding  of  how  it 
operates,  if  you're  going  to  be  able  to  have  some  say  about  it. 

Morris:       This  is  something  I  would  like  to  come  back  to  another  day. 
Charles:      Yes,  fine,  we'll  do  that. 

Morris:       Maybe  that  would  be  a  good  place  to  stop  for  today. 

## 


131 


Staff  Standing 

[Interview  5:   3  October  1977] ## 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles; 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles; 


What  I  also  want  to  ask  you  about  teaching  at  Mills  was  how  the 
faculty  responded? 

I  have  to  say  that  I  was  very  pleasantly  surprised.   I  had  had 
enough  sense  to  realize  that  I  was  invading  territory  for  which 
I  was  not  qualified,  or  at  least  I  didn't  think  I  was.   Lynn 
White  kept  assuring  me  the  only  qualification  I  needed  was  his 
idea  that  I  was  qualified,  which  I  thought  was  pretty  tenuous. 
But  the  whole  faculty  treated  me  most  graciously.   I  never 
even  attempted  to  attend  faculty  meetings,  or  that  sort  of 
thing. 

What  department  were  you  attached  to? 

Let  me  think  what  it  was.  The  wrong  department,  whatever  it 
was.   He  didn't  know  where  to  put  it,  and  I  think  it  was  in 
domestic  science  or  something.   And  then  later  I  think  they 
started  a  sociology  department,  and  it  was  transferred  there 
which  was  probably  a  more  logical  place  for  it.   I'm  not  sure 
but  that  was  probably  where  it  was.   I  just  don't  remember. 

Were  there  any  particular  faculty  people  that  you  did  develop 
a  working  relationship  with? 

No,  because,  you  know,  I  was  a  commuter.   I  commuted  over  there 
and  allowed  time  after  my  class  for  any  students  who  wanted  to 
see  me,  that  sort  of  thing — anybody  who  wanted  to  see  me. 

Did  students  take  advantage  of  that? 

Oh,  no,  not  frequently,  but  infrequently  they  did. 
Occasionally  I  would  suggest  it,  come  and  talk  to  me. 
Especially  when  I  had  a  student  who  had  the  brains  but  just 
wouldn't  do  the  work.  Gee,  that  drives  you  crazy,  you  know. 
I  can  understand  how  faculty  members  feel  about  that  because 
you  see  a  person  with  all  the  ability  in  the  world  without 
any  training  or  knowledge. 

Did  you  have  many  girls  like  that? 

I  had  several,  from  more  or  less  comfortable  families  who 


132 


Charles; 

Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Charles : 
Morris : 

Charles : 

Morris: 
Chrales : 


were  involved  in  a  bit  of  snobbery,  you  know.  They  were  hard 
to  deal  with,  for  me.  So,  I'd  just  say  what  I  had  to  say  and 
forget  it. 

Did  they  do  well  in  the  course  generally? 

Comme  si  comme  53.  No,  most  of  them  hadn't  read  anything.  What 
they  knew  they'd  gotten  from  the  air,  and  whatever  I  said.   But 
I  had  reference  books  for  them  to  read,  which  I  thought  would 
widen  their  scope — would  have  if  they  would  have  read  it. 

Before  we  get  into  the  reading  list  you  wanted  them  to  do — I 
wondered  if  you  were  a  paid  member  of  the  faculty? 

I  was  paid  a  thousand  dollars  a  year,  which  Al  said  just  about 
paid  for  my  commuting.   [Laughs]  And  I  appreciated  it.   It  was 
wonderful  because  my  generation  was  very  different  from  this  one 
coming  alone.   I  hadn't  had  any  real  money  I  could  call  my  own, 
except  of  course  I've  always  had  a  very  generous  husband,  but 
even  so  it  doesn't  make  up  for  not  having  something  that  you 
can  decide  on,  spending  with  a  clear  conscience.   So  I  loved 
that  thousand  dollars.   I  felt  as  rich  as  I  don't  know  who.   It 
was  very  helpful  in  the  family  because  Al  had  just  got  this 
property  in  Woodside — he  had  enough  money  to  buy  it,  to  buy 
the  land  and  build  the  house,  and  then  he  had  nothing  to  furnish 
it  with.   So  I  just  used  my  money  to  get  the  essentials  of 
furniture  that  could  see  us  through  for  a  year.  Because  I 
felt,  I've  always  felt  that  he's  been  very  generous  with  his 
wife  and  daughters,  and  it's  up  to  me  to  be  sure  I  manage  well. 

[interruption  for  tea] 

In  any  case,  I  was  a  paid  member  of  the  faculty. 

And  in  addition  to  feeling  good  about  having  money  of  your  own, 
did  that  give  you  any  sense  that  this  was  more  important  than 
other  work  you  did? 

Yes,  it  certainly  did.   It  gave  the  feeling  of  a  certain  kind  of 
success.   In  any  case,  a  recognition  anyway,  that  I  had  never 
had  before. 

Was  that  about  the  same  level  that  other  faculty  were  being 
paid,  do  you  know. 

Oh,  no,  no.   I  tell  you,  there's  a  category  in  the  academic 
world  called  "lecturers."  That's  what  I  was.  You  are  paid 
whatever  the  school  feels  it  can  afford,  or  whatever  you  can 
afford  to  accept.  The  other  faculty  positions  have  scales  of 
pay. 


133 


Freedom  of  Choice  and  Leadership  Potential 


Morris:       One  of  the  things  that  Lynn  White  mentioned  when  I  was  talking 
with  him  was  the  business  of  academic  kinds  of  courses  versus 
non-academic . 

Charles:      Yes.  I  worked  very  hard  to  have  reference  books  that  would  fall 
in  the  academic  world,  and  assign  them  pages  of  them.  Such  as, 
there's  quite  a  good  history  of  social  work;  I  can't  remember 
now  the  name  of  it.  I  think  I  can  find  that  book  list.  That 
gave  them  a  sense  of  what  had  happened  in  England  when  the 
industrial  age  came  in  and  people  began  to  realize  how  poor 
the  so-called,  what  we  would  have  called  in  ages  past  the 
peasants,  were.  They  had  nothing,  and  they  were  worse  off 
in  the  industrial  age.  They  were  paid  pathetically  little. 
And  then  that  whole  movement  moved  over  to  the  United  States, 
and  I  think  that  was  the  revival  of  our  feeling  for  volunteer 
work.   I  say  revival  because  I  think  that  care  for  one's 
neighbor  was  an  inherent  part  of  what  happened  when  these 
people  first  came  to  this  country,  and  it  is  what  volunteer 
work  really  is.   Caring  for  those  with  less  than  you  have. 
And  a  feeling  of  responsibility  for  doing  that. 

I  think  the  way  I  interested  the  students — it's  not  easy  to 
keep  students  interested  in  people  of  my  age,  you  know — but  I 
interested  them  by  giving  them  a  good  many  anecdotes  of  things 
that  had  happened  to  me  that  were  amusing,  and  little  insights 
that  I  had  into  the  way  people  behaved  in  certain  ways.  So  I 
would  get  them  to  watch  for  that  in  their  lives.  For  instance, 
I  have  always  felt  it  was  important  for  people  to  realize  that 
we  should  not  try  to  draw  our  friends  into  the  same  kind  of 
volunteer  work  that  we  do,  or  at  least  under  our  supervision, 
because  friendship  is  too  delicate  and  important  a  thing  in 
our  lives  to  jeopardize  by  putting  people  in  a  situation  where 
they  might  be  called  to  account  by  a  friend. 

I  have  made  many  friends  in  volunteer  work,  people  I've 
met  doing  the  same  work,  but  I  have  never  tried  to  turn  my 
friends  into  workers. 

Morris:       That's  an  interesting  distinction.  So  that  generally  you  felt 

that  the  friends  that  you  started  out  your  married  life  with  were 
not  particularly  interested  in  the  work  of  volunteers? 

Charles:      Yes,  right.  And  I  didn't  put  any  urging  on  them  at  all.  They 

knew  what  I  was  doing,  and  if  they  were  interested,  why,  of  course, 
we'd  be  glad  to  help  them.  And  you  see,  the  whole  Junior 
League  idea  of  analyzing  volunteer  work  and  making  it  into 


134 


Charles:      something  that  you  could  lay  down  rules  for,  came  from  the 
realization  that  neighbors  are  no  longer  the  poor  of  any 
community.  You're  segregated  economically  too  severely  to 
be  able  to  just  go  round  your  neighborhood  and  find  the 
people  in  need. 

Morris :       As  you  could  in  the  early  days? 
Charles :      Yes . 

Morris:       The  kind  of  church  welfare  idea  of  looking  after  the  poor  in 
the  parish. 

Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       Were  there  any  other  books  particularly  that  you  remember  as 
being  helpful? 

Charles:      I  was  very  anxious  for  them  to  read  the  books  about  what  women 

were  going  through  at  the  present  time,  and  how  this  thing  could 
influence  their  decisions  as  to  what  they  wanted  to  do  with  their 
own  lives. 

Morris:       I  was  wondering  if  it  were  books  written  in  the  forties? 

Charles:      No,  no.   Some  of  these  were  very  old  books.   This  was  '49  that 
I  started  teaching.  Oh  no,  it  might  be  fifty  years  before.   It 
was  the  time  all  this  movement  was  taking  place. 

Morris:       The  suffragists,  and  the  literature  on  women  getting  the  vote. 

Charles:      Yes.  And  also  the  care  for  the  poor  had  never  really  been 
recognized  as  much  as  it  needed  to  be. 

Morris:       This  is  literature  on  settlement  houses,  and  things  of  tnat 
kind. 

Charles:      Yes,  right. 

Morris:       You've  mentioned  a  couple  of  times,  the  idea  of  religious 

underpinnings  to  volunteer  work.  And  I  wonder  how  you  would 
go  about  discussing  that  in  an  academic  course. 

Charles:      I  just  said  that  I  felt  we  each  had  something  in  us  that  demanded 
a  voice  in  our  lives,  and  it  was  the  need  to  do  something  for 
others.  Not  to  live  alone  for  ourselves. 


Morris: 


Was  this  something  that  you  had  gotten  from  church  in  your — ? 


135 


Morris 


Charles; 


Charles:      No,  I  don't  think — well,  I  may  have  but  I  haven't  gotten  it  in 
those  words  in  church,  but  it's  what  I  really  believe  myself. 
I  tried  very  hard  to  sit  down  with  myself  and  work  out  my  own 
beliefs  about  these  things,  so  that  when  I  spoke  to  the  students 
what  I  said  was  absolutely  sincere.  You  know,  it's  terribly 
important  with  young  people  to  be  speaking  what  is  the  truth 
to  you.  Because  they  can  detect  that  very  quickly. 

Do  you  remember  how  the  students  responded  to  that  idea? 
Sometimes  religion  is  hard  to  talk  about. 

Yes.   It  never  got  turned  into  religion,  but  they  were  all 
very  supportive  of  that  idea  because  I  think  that  the  determination 
of  women — the  need  for  women's  freedom  was  the  sap  that  was 
just  coming  up  to  fruition.  And  that  even  though  the 
suffragettes  accomplished  certain  things,  then  it  seemed  to 
go  under  for  awhile,  it  came  up  again  in  us,  with  our 
appreciation  of  the  chance  to  get  out  of  our  homes  and  do 
volunteer  work,  and  really  select  what  we  wanted  to  do. 

Morris:       In  the  way  of  volunteer  work? 

Charles:      In  the  way  of  volunteer  work.   I  was  talking  to  a  friend  of  mine 
the  other  day  and  she  said,  "I've  never  forgotten  my  exhilaration 
when  I  heard  about  this  'volunteer  work.'  The  exhilaration  that 
I  was  now  about  to  be  truly  free  to  choose  something  to  do  that 
I  wanted  to  do." 

Morris:       In  the  class  work,  did  you  talk  with  the  women  about  what 
possible  choices  there  were? 

Charles:      Oh  my,  yes.   That  was  what  we  did  talk  about.   But,  you  know, 

a  great  many  people  have  thought  the  course  would' be,  or  perhaps 
should  be,  conducted  on  the  basis  of  visiting  speakers.  But 
many  people  don't  know  how  to  talk  to  young  people  without 
talking  down  to  them,  or  being  a  bit  sententious  in  a  way  that 
the  young  don't  like.  And  it  really  was  a  great  waste  of  time, 
I  felt.  Even  some  of  the  most  gifted  people  in  the  volunteer 
picture  were  not  suited  to  speaking  to  young  people. 

Morris:       You  mentioned  that  you  did  try  visiting  speakers. 

Charles:      Indeed  I  did  try  some  at  first.  But  I  abandoned  it  because  I 
decided  the  time  was  being  wasted.   It  was  better  for  me  to 
tell  the  students  what  these  women  did,  then  have  them  come 
another  time  and  tell  what  they  did  without  any  philosophizing 
or  theorizing  of  the  subject. 


Morris : 


They'd  just  come  and  do  a  straight  factual — 


136 


Charles:      Yes,  they'd  come  and  the  students  could  ask  how  they  managed 
Telegraph  Hill  Neighborhood  House,  for  instance.   But  I 
repeatedly  told  the  young  people  that  they  must  use  every  bit 
of  their  wits  in  functioning  in  this  voluntary  field,  and 
that  they  needed  to  pay  attention  and  observe  and  sense  how 
people  felt,  and  not  take  advantage  of  it,  or  tread  on  things 
that  bothered  them.   I  pointed  out  that  each  person  has  his 
sensitivities  and  we  need  to  detect  what  they  are. 

Morris:       Are  they  different  in  different  kinds  of  community  organizations? 

Charles:      They're  different  in  different  kinds  of  people.  And  I  would  say 
that  they  don't  always  run  through  an  organization,  but  some 
people  are  very  sensitive  about  religion,  as  you  say,  and  some 
people  are  very  sensitive  about  politics.   They're  the  old 
things  that  we  all  know  you  should  never  discuss. 

Morris:       Religion  and  politics.   [Laughs] 

Charles:      Yes.   There's  a  lot  of  truth  in  it,  of  course.   Because  it  may 
get  too  close  to  them,  a  lot  of  people  won't  allow  you  to  get 
that  close  to  them. 

Morris:       I  was  going  to  ask  if  you  exposed  your  students  to  organizations 
like  the  League  of  Women  Voters — ones  that  can  give  you  an 
overview  of  different  possibilities  in  volunteer  work. 

Charles:      Indeed  I  did.  We  sort  of  yanked  them  into  volunteer  work  as  a 
sort  of  an  afterthought,  because  it  really  began  to  be  what  you 
might  call  "welfare  work."  And  then  I  realized  that  all  of  this— 
even  when  we  went  to  vote,  we  were  giving  our  time  as  volunteers 
to  our  country.  Nobody  was  paying  us  to  do  that. 

Morris:       I've  been  reading  Arlene  Daniels'  preliminary  article  on  her 
study.*  She  makes  the  point  that  there  is  quite  a  difference 
between  the  service  kind  of  the  welfare  organization  and  some 
thing  like  the  League. 

Charles:      That's  true.   And  many  people  are  not  suited  to  our  sort  of 

thing  at  all,  and  find  themselves  very  unhappy.  And  I've  always 
tried  to  warn  people  starting  to  work  as  volunteers  to  give 
themselves  a  short  term  to  start  with,  because  they  have  to  fid 
find  out  whether  it  is  something  they  could  manage  to  handle. 


"The  Place  of  Volunteerism  in  the  Lives  of  Women,"  Arlene 
Kaplan  Daniels,  Report  for  NIMH  Grant  //MH26294-01,  1975, 
Program  on  Women,  Northwestern  University. 


137 


Morris:       Did  the  students  in  the  class  after  talking  about  this  with  you, 
develop  a  sense  of  what  their  own  skills  might  be? 

Charles:      I  thought  so.  One  of  them  amused  me  very  much.  She  had 

conducted  a  meeting  of  students  from  various  other  colleges 
who  had  come  to  a  joint  meeting  at  Mills  on  some  subject.  And 
she  said,  "Mrs.  Charles,  I  just  thought  of  what  you  told  me, 
to  use  my  head  and  watch  what  was  going  on."  She  said,  "There 
was  one  boy  who  just  never  stopped  talking,  and  he  was  driving 
us  all  crazy.   So  I  asked  him  to  be  the  secretary  of  the 
meeting,  and  it  worked  beautifully.  He  didn't  have  time  to 
talk  any  more."  And  I  said,  "That's  just  exactly  the  kind  of 
thing  I  want  you  to  learn." 

Morris:       Are  these  kinds  of  techniques  something  that  you  can  actually 
teach,  or  do  people  have  to  learn  them? 

Charles:      Well,  they  have  to  learn  them  by  themselves,  but  you  can 

remind  them  of  the  kinds  of  things  you're  talking  about.  And 
they  can  apply  it  to  the  situation  they're  in,  in  their  own 
creative  way,  if  they  will. 

I  had  a  list  for  them,  something  I  called  "pointers,"  that 
were  little  things  of  that  sort  about  how  food  at  the  beginning 
of  a  meeting  is  a  very  important  way  to  get  people  feeling 
comfortable  with  each  other.  And  also — I  pointed  out  to  them — 
people  are  very  uncomfortable,  when  they  don't  know  who  else 
is  in  the  audience,  about  opening  their  mouths  about  anything. 
So  you  must  start  out  by  making  clear  who  the  others  are, 
andy  why  they  are  there,  and  something  about  their  backgrounds 
a  little  bit.   So  everybody  feels  they  are  talking  in  front  of 
people  who  would  understand  what  they  were  talking  about. 

Morris:       Did  you  do  quite  a  lot  of  work  in  the  course  on  meetings  and 
committees,  and  that  kind  of  thing? 

Charles:      Yes,  we  talked  about  conducting  meetings,  and  how  it  was  best 

done.  I  had  a  very  nice  letter  from  a  woman  I  met  several  years 
ago  in  a  Junior  League  symposium  of  some  kind  of  volunteer  work, 
and  she  was  a  parliamentarian.  I  have  always  thought  that  every 
volunteer  group  ought  to  have  a  parliamentarian  attached  to  it, 
as  a  resource  person.   Because  most  of  us  really  don't  know 
much  about  parliamentary  law.  We  don't  need  it  very  often, 
except  at  critical  moments. 

Morris:       And  then  you  need  it  desperately. 

Charles:      And  then  you  really  need  it,  so  that  I  have  always  had  a 

parliamentarian  at  every  meeting  that  I  could  feel  was  going 


138 


Charles:  to  be  difficult.  You  usually  can  anticipate  what  your  meeting 
is  going  to  be  if  you  give  a  little  thought  to  it.  It  should 
never  take  you  by  surprise,  to  find  that  a  meeting  is  becoming 
difficult  to  handle.  Because  you  should  have  some  idea  of  the 
personalities  who  are  there,  too,  and  you  may  have  personality 
problems  which  you  have  to  solve  on  the  basis  of  parliamentary 
law. 

One  thing  you  learn  when  you're  presiding  at  meetings  is 
that  you  you  become  angry,  you  lose  the  entire  audience.  You 
can't  hold  them  by  sharp  words  going  out  to  anybody  in  the 
audience.   If  you  really  severely  criticize  a  person  in  the 
audience  or  correct  him  in  a  way  that  is  unpleasant,  you  will  lose 
not  only  those  people  but  everybody.  They're  looking  for  fair 
play.  That  was  the  thing  that  stood  me  in  good  stead  at 
Stanford  when  I  was  on  the  board  of  trustees,  and  the  students 
created  so  much  difficulty  then.   That  was  about  1960,  I  guess, 
if  I  can  remember  correctly. 

Of  course,  it  took  everybody  completely  by  surprise  because 
during  the  fifties  the  students  had  been  very  unwilling  to  talk; 
we  wanted  them  to  talk.  We  got  our  wishes  on  that,  more  than  we 
might  have  asked  for.   But  it  seemed  to  me  that  what  those 
students  were  looking  for  was  to  see  how  fair  we  would  play  with 
the  students  who  overstepped  with  violence.  Because  plenty  of 
them  did;  some  of  them  wanted  to  test  how  far  they  could  go. 
They  went  too  far  in  their  protests.   I  used  to  remind  the 
board  about  that,  and  I  remember  hearing  with  some  gratification 
that  the  students  were  saying  to  each  other  that  I  was  always 
fair  on  the  board.  [Mrs.  Charles  added  the  following  passage 
when  reviewing  the  transcript] 

In  those  days  I  was  on  the  lecture  circuit.  Mills  College 
alumnae  clubs  and  volunteer  organizations  around  the  Bay  Area 
would  invite  me.   "I  love  to  talk  about  volunteer  work,"  I  would 
begin  my  speeches.   I  was  amazed  to  discover  that  I  could  speak 
easily  and  well.   I  observed  that  when  I  knew  what  I  was  talking 
about  and  the  3,024  points  I  wanted  to  make,  I  felt  warm  and 
happy  with  my  audience.   In  fact,  these  dedicated  women  in  the 
voluntary  organizations  were  very  appealing  to  me.   I  cannot 
say  how  much  I  disapprove  of  the  new  word  "volunteerism"  or 
the  word  "professional  volunteer,"  which  I  heard  once  applied 
to  me  and  spoke  sharply  to  the  nice  young  woman  who  used  it. 
Both  words  and  phrases  suggest  that  a  person  just  set  out  to 
hold  a  volunteer  career  without  concern  for  the  particular 
field  in  which  she  volunteered,  or  tryly  wishing  to  help,  which 
downgrades  the  concept  of  volunteering.  Most  volunteers  that  I 
have  known  have  believed  deeply  in  what  they  were  doing,  and 
since  have  indeed  learned  professional  skills  in  the  field.  But 


139 


Charles:      the  motivation  is  all  important.  For  the  rewards  of  volunteering 
are  to  the  larger  need  we  each  have,  I  believe,  of  being  a 
contributor  to  the  welfare  of  others.  Women  need  to  feel  this 
sense  of  doing  for  others  who  cannot  repay,  I  have  observed, 
for  their  development  as  persons.   I  have  been  reading  a  most 
satisfying  book  on  this.  Dr.  Jeanne  Baker  Miller  offers  the 
most  valid  acceptable  (to  me)  explanation  of  this  need  which, 
she  believes,  is  inherently  in  human-kind,  certainly  in  men 
as  well  as  woman,  but  it  is  society  that  has  decreed  that  men 
should  submerge  this  faculty,  and  women  should  emphasize  it, 
that  is,  the  "caring"  activities.*  During  these  long  years  of 
volunteer  work,  I  have  made  some  observations,  and  such  is  my 
slavery  to  academic  procedures,  I  am  jubilant  when  I  find  that 
academic  research  has  come  to  the  same  conclusion.   In  deference 
to  Dr.  Miller,  I  had  not  thought  of  that  need  being  both  male 
and  female,  though  I  have  known  many  men  who  had  human  sympathies 
in  a  great  profusion,  but  it  was  always  a  little  submerged  to 
their  business  or  profession. 

[transcript  resumes] 


Career  Possibilities 


Morris : 


Charles : 


Morris: 


In  talking  with  the  students  about  this  business  of  giving 
yourself  a  test  time  in  the  organization  to  find  out  if  it's 
your  kind  of  a  thing,  were  they  interested  at  all  in  talking 
about  how  working  in  a  volunteer  organization  is  the  kind  of 
a  stepping  stone,  did  they  see  their  volunteer  prospects  as 
a  career? 

Not  very  much,  and  I  warned  people  about  that.  I  think  it's 
very  nice  if  it  turns  out  that  way,  but  I  don't  believe  that 
we  can  afford  to  go  into  it  with  the  hope  that  it  will  bring 
in  a  recompense  of  some  kind  later  on  in  a  career. 

I  wasn't  thinking  about  it  in  a  financial  sense,  I  was  thinking 
about  it  in  the  sense  of  going  through  the  chairs,  as  it  were. 
Or,  if  somebody  coming  into  a  volunteer  job  thinks  of  it  in 
terms  of  "what  might  I  end  up  at  in  ten  years?" 


Jean  Baker  Miller,  Toward  a  New  Psychology  of  Women. 
Boston:  Beacon  Press,  1976. 


140 


Charles ; 


Morris: 
Charles; 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Oh,  I  think  that's  very  bad.   I  have  tried  very  hard  to  make 
people  not  cling  to  the  idea  that  they're  going  to  be  rising 
to  the  most  important  place  there  is  in  that  organization. 
I've  seen  more  broken  hearts  over  that  sort  of  thing,  because 
it's  very  dependent  on  the  other  people  in  the  organization. 
If  you  do  get  moved  along,  you  may  earn  it,  but  you  may  not 
get  it.  The  point  is  to  make  what  you  do  every  day  worth  the 
doing,  without  counting  it  towards  future  glory.   I  have  never 
done  that  myself,  and  I'm  glad  I  had  the  habit  of  not  doing  it. 
I've  never  counted  on  any  honors  that  I  might  get,  though  I've 
been  greatly  honor.ed,  and  I've  appreciated  it  terrifically. 
But  not  because  I  never  expected  it.   I  really  never  did.   I  do 
don't  believe  that  we  can  afford  to  do  what  we  do  because  we 
think  it  will  bring  us  some  reward  here  on  earth.  That's  what 
I  mean  about  the  religious  aspect.   I  think  only  because  we 
believe  that  it  may  help  whatever  it  is  working  in. 


That's  true, 
of  ambition. 


I  was  thinking  about  the  other  human  characteristic 


You  have  to  quiet  ambition  a  good  deal  in  voluntary  organizations, 
because  if  a  fellow  volunteer  detects  your  ambition  to  rise  out 
of  their  ranks,  most  of  them  become  very  wary  of  you.  You  have 
to  try  to  curb  that  thing. 

Now  that's  interesting,  because  one  of  the  current  problems, 
I  gather,  in  many  volunteer  organizations,  is  finding  people 
who  will  take  the  leadership  job. 

Yes,  well,  it's  always  hard.  You  do  have  to  persuade  them 
probably.   But  then  it's  better  to  persuade  somebody  who  has 
shown  the  qualifications  than  it  is  to  have  people  moving  in 
on  you  who  believe  they  have  the  qualification:  "I'm  going 
to  get  it  come  hell  or  high  water." 

At  what  point  does  one  decide  how  long  one  should  stay  with  a 
given  organization? 

Well,  when  you  decide  you're  just  not  enjoying  yourself  or 
giving  what  you  want  to  give  to  people  that  way,  it's  time  to 
quit.   Because  it  immediately  becomes  empty,  what  you're  doing 
becomes  empty,  you'll  find  yourself  just  coming  back,  putting 
your  work  in  and  drifting  a  bit  away  from  it.   So  that  we  do 
need  to  evaluate  our  situation  in  life  every  now  and  then  to 
see  where  we  are,  and  what  we  want. 

I  remember  a  very  odd  friend  of  mine  who  had  a  lot  of 
interesting  ideas,  and  had  studied  all  over  the  world  with 
all  sorts  of  mystical  people  and  I  don't  know  what  all,  and 


141 


Charles:      she  said,  "Every  person  should  have  love  In  his  life,  and  work  in 
his  life,  and  play  in  his  life.  And  he  needs  to  examiner  which 
each  activity  fulfills."  I  came  home  and  thought  about  it;  I 
thought,  "Now  what  do  I  do  for  play?"  and  what  I  discovered  was, 
what  I  do  for  play  is  my  board  meetings.  I  love  them,  because 
they  are  a  form  a  play,  you  know,  when  you  know  the  ropes  and 
know  what  you  are  trying  to  accomplish,  and  know  the  characters, 
and  what's  going  to  happen  next.  So.  you  don't  need  too  much 
more  play  if  what  you're  doing  falls  into  that  category.  What 
you  may  need  is  something  more  like  work  to  you. 

Morris:       Work  being  something  you  do — ? 

Charles:      A  learning  process  of  any  kind,  I  would  say,  is  what  work  is. 

Morris:       Had  you  developed  these  ideas  already  at  the  time  you  were  teaching 
at  Mills  College? 

Charles:      That  particular  idea,  I  think,  came  later,  but  I  have  always 
been  full  of  those  little  things,  which  I  tried  to  pass  on  to 
the  students,  which  interested  them  a  great  deal.  They  loved 
it;  you  could  just  see  them  putting  it  away  to  think  about. 

Morris:       Can  you  tell  me  a  bit  more  about  your  students'  actual  visits 
in  different  types  of  projects? 

Charles:      Indeed  they  did  not  visit,  they  became  volunteers  in  an  agency. 
Sometimes  they  chose  agencies  where  they  supervised  play,  or 
whatever,  whether  it  was  backward  children —  And  I  think  that 
the  organization  tried  to  put  to  use  the  fact  that  they  were  in 
college  and  taking  courses  on  such  things. 

I  think  it's  important  for  organizations  to  know  as  much 
about  the  volunteer  they're  bringing  in  as  they  can  in  order  to 
place  them  where  it  will  do  both  the  organization  and  the 
volunteer  some  good  and  give  them  some  pleasure.  But,  I  want 
to  tell  you,  there's  nothing  scarier  than  when  you  realize  that 
you  have  people  in  on  your  organization  who  see  it  as  a 
stepping  stone  for  something.   It's  just  partly  because  they 
misuse  the  organization. 

Morris:       That's  interesting.   Stepping  stone  in  what  sense? 

Charles:      Well,  if  they're  politically  interested.  For  instance,  the 

League  of  Women  Voters.   It  has  such  a  good  reputation  among  the 
political  world,  referring  to  their  membership,  and  getting 
themselves  into  associations  that  they  couldn' t  get  into  if 
they  didn't  have  that  to  start  with. 


Morris : 


What  is  the  hazard  of  this  in  an  organization? 


142 


Charles ; 


Morris : 
Charles 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles : 


The  hazard  is  that  these  people  are  not  working  for  the  good  of 
your  organization,  but  for  their  own  good — for  something  ambitious 
in  themselves.  That  is  damaging  to  the  organization,  and  to  the 
good  relationship  among  volunteers,  when  you  have  people  who  are 
so  blatantly  ambitious  that  they  just —  Or  they  want  to  see  who 
they  can  meet.   In  many  organizations,  if  they  think  there  are 
any  social  connections  they  can  make  in  it,  or  start  pursuing 
these  people  in  a  way  that  it's  not  pleasant. 

Of  course,  you  can't  close  your  doors  to  anyone,  but  what 
you  can  do  is  to  be  sure  that  they  don't  get  very  interesting 
jobs.   [Chuckles]  I  really  think  that  you  have  to  be  a  guardian 
of  the  welfare  of  your  organization  and  those  it  serves  as  well 
as  of  the  person  volunteering.  You  don't  sit  down  and  have  a 
heart-to-heart  talk,  or  accuse  them,  because  this  is  the  sort 
of  thing  that  they  would  deny  immediately.   But,  you  do  talk  to 
them  seriously  about  what  is  good  for  the  organization.  What 
we  need  to  know  is  our  relationship  with  the  other  volunteers — 
whether  we  have  a  happy  relationship.   It  really  makes  life  much 
more  interesting  if  you're  working  with  people  who  understand 
you  and  whom  you  understand,  so  that  you  each  get  a  lift  from  the 
association,  and  find  yourself  doing  the  same  thing  in  your 
efforts  to  help  society,  or  the  group  your  organization  was 
formed  to  help. 


It  sounds  as  if  a  lot  of  this  is  tacit, 
talk  directly. 


You  said  you  can't 


No,  it  is,  that's  right.  You  wouldn't  talk  to  anybody  about  it, 
and  you're  not  going  to  turn  your  board  meetings  into  a  gossip 
factory. 

Does  the  person  who  is  in  the  chairman's  spot  or  the  president's 
spot,  have  some  individuals  that  they  talk  to? 

You  have  to  have  almost — but  you're  going  to  have  to  select  that 
person  very,  very  carefully.   Someone  who  won't  take  advantage 
of  you,  or  deter  you,  and  make  it  look  as  if  you  were  discussing 
everybody  else  with  them.   It's  hard,  it's  very  hard  and  very 
lonely  being  a  president  of  anything.  One  of  the  loneliest 
jobs  in  the  world. 

Were  you,  in  your  own  mind,  teaching  this  class  with  the  view 
that  the  students  in  it  would  end  up  as  board  people  and 
presidents? 

That  was  what  my  thought  was.   They  were  all  leaders — most  of 
them  were.  Although  we  can't  all  be  leaders,  you  recognize 
these  people.  Mills  is  a  very  fine  school,  and  one  who  is 


143 


Charles:  fortunate  enough  to  get  in  and  come  through  the  courses  they  have 
at  Mills,  is  probably  going  to  be  a  superior  kind  of  person.  She 
will  find  her  own  depth  and  her  own  place  as  she  moves  along. 

Morris:       And  for  potential  leaders,  the  feeling  was  that  it  was  important 
to  have  these  actual  one-to-one  working  experiences? 

Charles:      Oh  my,  yes.  I  always  told  them  that  nobody  should  go  in  on  the 
top  of  any  of  these  organizations.   I  had  a  very  dear,  older 
friend  who  asked  me  to  come  in  as  a  state  officer  for  the  American 
Cancer  Society,  and  I  told  her,  "I  could  never  start  out  that 
way.   I'm  going  to  have  to  be  the  lowliest  volunteer  they  have 
before  I  would  ever  want  to  rise  to  the  top."  Because  you  don't 
know  what  you're  talking  about  when  you  talk  to  the  persons  who 
are  doing  the  everyday  work.  What  I  learned  was  that  I  was 
not  meant  for  the  Cancer  Society  because  I  really  don't  enjoy 
seeing  that  people  know  what  the  danger  signals  are.   It  scares 
me  to  try  to  inject  into  their  thoughts  that  kind  of  a  fear. 
People  have  enough  fear  as  it  is.  But,  of  course,  they  do  need 
to  know  the  necessity  of  keeping  track  of  their  health 
conscientiously.  But  this  seemed  to  be  a  little  different. 
Now,  the  Cancer  Society  has  hundreds  of  volunteers,  thousands, 
and  they  don't  feel  that,  so  I'm  not  condemning  the  Society  a 
bit. 

Morris:       Manyof  them  apprently  have  had  a  close  encounter  with  cancer. 

Charles:      That's  right. 

Morris:       And  it  helps  somehow  to  deal  with  that. 

Charles:      I  don't  think  you  have  always  to  have  been  in  the  other  fellow's 
shoes  when  you  do  this  kind  of  community  work.   Sometimes  it 
helps  when  you  just  go  along  on  your  own  and  see  them.   Being 
a  true  representative  of  your  own  situation  in  life  is  important, 
because  the  community  is  composed  of  people  in  all  kinds  of 
different  backgrounds,  and  we  need  to  understand  each  other 
from  the  outside,  not  always  from  having  been  on  the  inside. 


A  Note  on  the  Junior  League 


Morris:  That's  true.  You  mentioned  the  Junior  League  a  couple  of  times. 
Was  that  kind  of  a  co-sponsor  or  closely  related  to  the  class  at 
Mills? 

Charles:      No.   I  have  made  a  great  many  talks  to  the  Junior  League, 


144 


Charles:      particularly  in  relation  to  their  classes  that  the  young  women 
first  came  into  when  they  were  first  learning  the  ropes. 

Morris:       The  orientation  for  new — ? 

Charles:      Yes,  for  new  members,  during  their  provisional  course.   I've 

been  doing  it  for  years.  One  of  the  nicest  things,  I  must  say, 
that  ever  happened  to  me  is  when  the  Junior  League  elected  me 
as  an  honorary  member. 

Morris:       I  should  say  so. 

Charles:      I  thought  it  was.  Those  young  women,  you  know,  really  touched 
me  deeply.   They  thought,  what  could  they  do  for  me  to  show 
their  appreciation.   I  thought  that  was  sweet. 

Morris:       Was  that  after  you  had  been  working  with  them  for  some  time? 

Charles:      Oh,  yes.  My  daughters  were  both  members  of  the  Junior  League 
before  I  ever  was.   [Laughs]  But  I've  always  admired  what  the 
League  does.   It's  a  very  important  element  in  the  community. 
The  force  of  it,  the  League  community  is  very,  very  good  for  some 
of  these  young  women  who  might  never  have  come  across  that  in 
their  lives.  And  a  lot  of  them  wouldn't  find  the  League  of 
Women  Voters  pleasing  to  them.   It  takes  different  kinds  of 
people  to  be  interested  in  different  kinds  of  things. 

Morris:       Are  there  many  overlaps  in  memberships  and  activities  between 
the  Junior  League  and  the  League  of  Women  Voters? 

Charles:      Not  too  many.   I  would  like  to  see  more.   I  think  that  people 
do     need  to  gain  experience  in  different  kinds  of  work, 
community  work,  but  the  Junior  League,  you  know,  is  now  going 
into  the  business  of  supporting  candidates  and  issues, 
actually  politics. 

Morris:       I  hadn't  heard  that. 

Charles:      Yes. 

Morris :       When  did  that  come  about? 

Charles:      It  first  began  about  a  year  ago.   I  believe  it  has  been  authorized 
nationally,  and  I  think  the  individual  Leagues  are  working  very 
slowly  and  carefully  to  be  sure  that  they  give  a  fair  representatior 
to  their  members'  opinions  in  deciding  what  positions  they're  going 
to  take.  This  is  not  easy  to  do.  And  I  think  they've  done  very 
well.   I  always  admire  the  way  the  Junior  League  makes  decisions — 
these  young  ladies  decide  they're  going  to  do  something,  they 


145 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 

Charles : 
Morris : 
Charles : 


barge  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread,  you  know.   They  learn  a  lot 
while  they  do  it,  they  really  do.   I  have  to  hand  it  to  them. 

Did  you  have  any  personal  friends  in  the  Junior  League  who  were 
the  ones  who  invited  you  to  speak? 

Well,  I  had  one  personal  friend,  but  my  contemporaries  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it,  because  you  know,  forty  is  the 
year  of  departure  from  active  League  membership,  going 
sustaining,  as  they  say.   So  the  sustainers  don't  decide 
these  things. 

It's  actually  run  all  the  way  through  by  young  women,  twenty 
to  forty? 

Very  young  people,  yes.  And  they  make  their  decisions.  They 
work  very  hard.  And  they  work  with  great  sincerity.   I  am 
very  appreciative  of  what  they  do  for  the  community. 

Did  many  of  your  students  from  Mills  go  into  the  Junior  League? 

Oh,  they  would  have,  yes,  in  later  years  in  their  own  communities. 
Mills  always  had  a  very  cosmopolitan  student  body.   Few  students 
from  San  Francisco  and  Oakland,  I  would  say. 

Fewer  local  students? 

Yes.  Not  only  from  all  over  this  country,  but  all  over  the 
world.  Well,  it's  a  very  sophisticated  and,  as  I  say, 
cosmopolitan  student  body.  A  wonderful  experience  for 
the  students. 


I  have  always  thought  it  must  be. 
with  any  of  them? 

No,  I'm  such  a  bad  correspondent. 


Did  you  stay  in  touch 


Did  any  of  them  stay  around  the  Bay  Area? 

No.   One  girl  for  a  couple  of  years  did,  and  I  heard  from  her. 
She  had  gone  into  social  work  as  a  profession  after  graduation. 
And  I  somewhat  encouraged  her  in  it,  I  think,  and  made  it 
interesting  to  her. 


146 


Charles:      We  had  quite  a  time  because  the  Ladies  Home  Journal  sent  out  a 
woman  to  do  a  story  on  this  course.*  It  was  the  first  time  a 
course  like  this  had  ever  been  done  in  any  college.   But  they 
got  all  mixed  up.  I  had  a  terrible  time  making  them  understand 
that  it  was  not  a  course  in  professional  social  welfare,  which 
is  what  they  thought  it  was.  And  I  said,  "No,  because  when  you 
deal  with  volunteers  you  have  to  look  at  everything  in  a  very 
different  way.  You  have  to  realize  that  there  will  be  children 
at  home  who  may  make  it  impossible  for  them  to  keep  doing  their 
best." 


Morris: 
Charles 


Did  you  have  any  contact  with  any  of  the  school  of  social 
welfare? 

No.  Not  really. 


Understanding  Staff 


Morris:       I  wondered  if  professional  social  welfare  training  included 

anything  from  the  other  way,  of  how  a  staff  person  deals  with 
volunteers. 

Charles:      No,  I  don't  think  so.   I  have  never  heard  of  such  a  thing — it 
might.  Yes,  I  think  that  they  may  have  done  it  but  they  do  it 
with  the  professionals  as  teachers.  Where  Lynn  was  so 
inspired  was  when  he  decided  to  have  his  course  taught  by  a 
person  who  was  a  volunteer  herself,  but  had  no  professional 
training. 


Charles:      I  think  of  one  person  who  is  staff  whom  I  think  would  really  be 
qualified  to  speak  about  what  volunteers  do.  That's  my  old 
friend  Florette  Pomeroy.   Do  you  know  Flor? 

Morris:       I  don't  know  her  as  well  as  I  would  like  to.   I  was  sorry  to  hear 
she's  had  a  heart  attack. 

Charles:      You  know,  Al  and  I  have  talked  about  this  frequently,  and  the 
feeling  is  that  we've  got  genes  that  are  going  to  determine 
some  things  that  happen  to  us,  no  matter  what  we  do.   I'm  sure 


"Training  for  Service  at  Mills  College,"  June,  1950. 


147 


Charles:      now  that  in  a  family  where  one  parent  or  the  other  has  had 
strokes,  the  children  will,  or  are  going  to  be  very  likely 
to  have  a  stroke.  My  mother  had  a  stroke  about  the  same  age 
I  did.   But  nobody  spoke  to  me  about  it  or  told  me  that  I  ought 
to  be  taking  some  precautions,  and  if  so,  what.  But  I  just  kept 
steaming  along.  And  I  don't  know  what  you  can  do  but  keep  on 
doing  what  you  have  to  do. 

Morris:       It  would  probably  be  worse  to  stop  everything  and  worry  about 
it. 

Charles:      Oh,  it  would  be  awful. 

Morris:       What  kinds  of  thinsg  can  you  tell  a  group  of  college  students 
about  what  to  expect  in  working  with  staff  in  a  voluntary 
organization? 

Charles:      What  I  say  is,  as  with  everybody  else  you  work  with:  Fellow 

volunteers,  it  will  repay  you  a  thousand  times  for  you  to  be  a 
real  student  of  the  staff  people  you  work  with.  Try  to  understand 
why  they  do  what  they  do,  and  what  they  expect,  or  don't  expect. 
I've  told  them  repeatedly  that  courtesy  is  a  great  way  to  smooth 
everybody's  task.  There  is  never  a  reason  to  be  discourteous 
about  anything. 

One  of  the  things  I've  tried  to  emphasize  and  make  them 
understand,  that  I  think  staff  people  need  to  consider  also, 
is  the  hierarchy  of  the  organization.  For  instance,  if  you 
are  critical  of  a  staff  person  who  is  quite  a  ways  down  in  the 
structure,  you  should  start  at  the  top  and  ask  who  you  should 
speak  to  about  what  you  think  she  is  doing  the  wrong  way.  And 
the  staff  person  should  be  sure  to  speak  to  the  volunteer  who's 
in  charge  of  whatever  group  of  volunteers  she  is  working  with 
if  she  doesn't  like  what  they're  doing. 

Morris:       Instead  of  going  to  the  person  you're  concerned  about. 

Charles:      It  is  hard  to  keep  these  lines  straight — these  lines  get  all 
criss-crossed.  You've  got  to  keep  them  open  and  direct,  if 
you  want  anything  to  come  out  of  your  work. 


Styles  of  Feminism 


Morris : 


You  did  the  Mills  course  for  ten  years  or  so,  and  I  wondered 
if  you  made  any  major  changes  in  the  course  of  that  period  of 
time? 


148 


Charles:      No,  I  didn't.   I  felt  that  by  some  blessing  I  had  managed  to  start 
off  on  the  right  foot  in  this.   It  had  worked,  and  there  was  no 
reason  why  it  wasn't  going  to  continue  to  work.  There  was  no 
major  change  in  the  kind  of  students  I  had,  and  that  is  the  only 
thing  that  really  creates  a  change  in  what  you  present,  unless 
you  just  went  at  at  all  wrong. 

Morris:       So,  the  students  were  the  same.   Did  they  have  the  same  kinds  of 
interest  in  things  they  wanted  tor — ? 

Charles:      Yes,  it  seemed  so.  We  have  a  different  group  now  with  the  young 

feminists  coming  along.  Occasionally  at  Stanford  I  would  be  asked 
to  the  campus  to  speak  to  them.  I  said  to  the  young  woman  who 
asked  me  the  last  time  (which  was  four  or  five  years  ago)  just 
at  the  beginning  of  the  intensity  of  the  feminist  thing.   And  I 
said,  "You  don't  want  me  just  to  speak  about  volunteering  for 
women  only  do  you?"  She  said,  "Oh  no,  Mrs.  Charles,  I  would 
not.   Speak  for  everybody!" 

Anyway,  on  the  same  program  with  me  the  day  I  spoke  was  this 
student  who  said  that  she  had  done  this  and  that,  and  had 
arrived  almost  immediately  at  what  she  wanted  to  accomplish. 
And  I  said,  "My  word,  you  did  that  fast."  She  said,  "I  have 
to,  I  don't  have  much  time."   [Laughter] 

I  thought  that  was  a  commentary  of  women's  desperation. 
But  it's  a  different  kind  of  world,  and  I'm  in  sympathy  with 
what  these  young  women  are  doing  because  I  think  every  time 
there  is  a  reform  it  needs  both  the  overt  (not  violent,  but 
the  forceful  tactics)  and  the  theoretical  ones  where  somebody 
is  sitting  on  the  sidelines  talking  about  what  women —  This 
thing  has  turned  into  a  real  struggle  between  the  male  and  the 
female.   In  the  early  days  of  the  suffragettes,  and  during  my 
activity,  we  didn't  pick  out  the  male  as  our  principle 
enemy,  as  these  young  women  have.   I'm  not  willing  to  accept 
that. 

Morris:       That  the — ? 

Charles:      That  the  male  is  opposed  to  women  just  because  she  is  a  woman. 
They  are  kind  of  leery  of  them.   I  used  to  talk  about  what 
you  have  to  do.  You  have  to  build  the  confidence  of  men  if  you 
wanted  to  be  asked  to  share  in  their  work,  in  the  old  days. 
And  I  would  say  I  believe  in  the  first  place,  that  every  woman 
should  look  her  very  best  whenever  she's  working,  whatever  it 
may  be,  because  that  is  one  of  her  important  tools  in  getting 
along  in  life. 


149 


Charles:      And  she  should  always  be  able  to  be  good  natured  about  what  is 

going  on,  because  humor  is  so  lacking  in  some  of  these  deliberations 
we  get  into.  And  remember,  it  is  a  great  deal  easier  for  women 
to  be  iconoclastic  than  for  men  in  society. 

Morris:       Is  it? 

Charles:      Oh,  much.  When  you  get  into  a  board,  the  men  may  well  know 

that  some  old  way  of  doing  things  has  to  be  knocked  down,  but 
they're  not  going  to  say  so  because  when  they  go  back  to  the 
club,  and  it  gets  all  over  that  Joe  Doakes  is  losing  his  head, 
because  he  is  now  suggesting  that  they  break  down  the 
restrictions  on  admissions  or  whatever  it  may  be.   But  a 
woman,  you  see,  can  always  have  the  opportunity  of  making  it 
look  like  a  sort  of  a  humorous  suggestion.  Not  that  she  isn't 
serious,  but  a  woman  is —  And  the  men  view  a  woman  as 
unaccountable.  They  won't  hold  it  against  her  husband  that 
she  makes  some  unusual  suggestion. 

Morris:       How  about  the  women?  Don't  women  go  back  to  their  groups 
and  say,  "Good  heavens,  do  you  know  what  that  woman  did?" 

Charles:      No,  I  don't  think  so.  Women  don't  play  that  way.   I  don't  think 
so.   There  are  always  a  great  many  women  who  still  subscribe 
to  the  male  way  of  doing  things,  but  they're  not  going  to  make 
it  in  this  world  any  more.   I  believe  that  women  are  going  to 
make  it  on  their  own  terms  from  now  on.  At  least,  I  think  it's 
a  tremendous  change  in  society  that  is  taking  place  under  our 
very  eyes. 

I  also  think  we're  all  going  to  have  to  share  with  the 
less  fortunate.   It  comes  as  a  terrible  shock,  and  you  learn 
a  lot  of  these  things  in  volunteer  work.  We  discovered  out  at  th 
the  county  hospital  that  a  great  many  of  our  volunteers  were 
people  who  were  near  or  below  the  poverty  line  themselves.  Our 
volunteer  director,  who  was  very  sensitive  to  these  things, 
would  tell  us  that  she  was  going  to  pay  the  car  fare  to  get 
back  and  forth  to  the  hospital  of  a  certain  number  of  the 
volunteers  because  she  knew  well  that  they  couldn't  afford 
to  do  that.   Those  things  don't  come  as  such  a  shock  any  more 
as  they  used  to.  And  if  you  don't  allow  that  sort  of  thing  to 
happen  then  you  turn  volunteering  into  the  Lady  Bountiful  type 
of  thing,  where  only  people  with  money  can  afford  to  do  it. 
And  we've  got  to  make  it  possible  for  other  people  to  do  it, 
too.  Now  the  federal  government  has  come  in  and  started  paying 
volunteers. 


150 


11.  LEAGUE  OF  WOMEN  VOTERS'  PRESIDENCY,  1948-1950,  AND  MAYORAL 
APPOINTMENTS//// 


Earlier  San  Francisco  Women  Leaders;  Public  Dance  Hall 
Committee  Issue 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles 


Morris: 


When  we  talked  over  the  phone  the  other  day  you  mentioned  the 
Public  Dance  Hall  Committee  in  connection  with  your  work  with 
the  League  of  Women  Voters. 

It  was  a  stunning  surprise  to  me  when  I  was  president  of  the 
League  of  Women  Voters  in  about — let's  see — '49,  I  believe. 
After  I  had  been  in  office  a  month  or  two,  I  had  a  call  from 
a  woman  who  was  executive  director,  so  to  speak  (they  didn't 
use  that  title  for  her  but  she  was  the  person  who  ran  the 
committee  for  these  ladies)  to  say  that  she  needed  help  from 
the  League.   Because  she  would  have  gone  to  the  Center,  you 
see,  the  League's  predecessor  in  San  Francisco,  because  it 
was  they  who  established  the  Dance  Hall  Committee.   I 
immediately  felt  it  was  something  that  the  League  should  do, 
even  though  it  didn't  fit  into  the  type  of  a  program  that  we 
were  running  at  that  time.  The  League  of  Women  Voters  nationally 
wanted  to  confine  itself  exclusively  to  political  issues,  and 
this  was  almost  in  the  realm  of  welfare. 

Right,  that's  what  I  think  of  the  Dance  Hall  Committee. 

It  would  have  been  what  we  did — what  I  suggested  actually — 
trying  to  get  at  what  their  problems  were.  Maybe  we  would  get 
Community  Chest  to  take  them  under  its  wing,  and  let  the  League 
still  keep  an  interest  in  what  they  did,  too,  from  a  political 
point  of  view. 

I  didn't  realize  that  the  Dance  Hall  Committee  continued  in 
existence  as  long  as  the  forties.   I  had  thought  it  had  been 
much  earlier. 


See  interview  with  Emma  Moffat  McLaughlin  for  a  further 
account  of  the  San  Francisco  Center  of  the  California  Civic 
League  and  the  Public  Dance  Hall  Committee. 


151 


Charles:      Well,  it  had  been.   It  started  in  1918,  as  I  recall.  And  it 

was  a  very  successful,  creative  kind  of  thing  that  they  did — they 
had  Miss  Garden.   The  thing  that  brought  it  all  to  mind  was,  I 
read  in  the  paper  that  she  had  died  at  the  age  of  one  hundred 
and  four  down  the  Peninsula. 

Morris:       What  a  remarkable  lady. 

Charles:      A  wonderful  little  lady.  One  of  those  little  competent  people, 
tiny  and  vivacious,  who  knew  how  to  do  things,  and  smart  as  a 
whip.  And  spoke  everybody's  language.   She  really  knew  the  dance 
hall  girls,  and  the  kind  of  men  who  came  to  dance  halls.  She 
knew  who  they  were.   I  remember  being  very  impressed  and  educated 
when  I  saw  her  in  the  meeting  we  had  with  the  police.  What  she 
wanted  help  with  was — when  they  started  the  Dance  Hall  Committee, 
the  police  had  agreed  that  they  would  not  give  liquor  licenses  to 
any  dance  hall  operators,  or  to  bars  near  the  dance  hall  where 
people  could  go  out  and  drink  because  Miss  Garden  said  liquor  and 
dance  halls  just  don't  mix  at  all.  You  just  can't  let  them  have 
it.   So  the  police  had  always  agreed  that  they  would  observe  that. 
Well,  all  of  a  sudden  she  got  wind  of  the  fact  that  they  were 
going  to  grant  a  liquor  license,  I  believe,  to  a  dance  hall 
operator,  or  someone  next  door. 

She  said,  "I  need  help,  I  haven't  gotten  anywhere  with 
trying  to  persuade  them  not  to  do  it."  And  she  said,  "They're 
holding  a  hearing  on  it  next  week  at  a  certain  time."  So  I 
said,  fine,  I'd  gather  up  some  of  the  ladies  who  were  involved 
and  who  still  were  a  power  in  San  Francisco.  And  we  all  filed 
down  to  that  hearing.  When  fhe  police  saw  us  come  in  they  really 
changed  their  tune  immediately.   [Laughter]  All  these  old  girls 
came  walking  in  and  sat  down  with  our  big  hats  on.  We  didn't  say 
a  word,  we  never  had  to. 

Morris:       That's  what  I  was  just  thinking.  Very  impressive. 

Charles:      Yes,  just  as  soon  as  they  saw  us  there.  Even  the  mayor  came  in 
and  spoke  to  us.   He  had  heard  that  we  were  going  to  be  there. 
It  was  really  amusing.  So,  I  was  learning  all  the  time.  It 
was  a  marvelous  learning  experience  for  me. 

Morris:       I  should  say  so,  that  just  by  the  presence  of  a  certain  level  of 
the  community  you  can — 

Charles:      Influence  what  goes  on.  You  would  have  thought  that  at  that  time 

I  would  have  awakened  to  the  fact,  which  I  have  done  recently,  which 
I  mentioned  to  you  the  other  day,  how  close  my  generation  was  to 
the  women  who  started  these  things.  We  thought  they  were  so  much 
older  they  didn't  have  any  real  relationship  with  us  at  all,  but 


152 


Charles:      there  wasn't  more  than  a  ten-year  gap  there. 

Morris:       Why  do  you  suppose  you  felt  that  there  was  a  larger  gap? 

Charles:      I  did  because  I  had  not  come  from  San  Francisco,  and  when  I  met 

these  women  they  were  all  considerably  older  than  I,  and  that  was 
why  I  felt,  "This  is  ancient  history,"  you  know.  Their  names  were 
just  as  important  to  city  hall  as  they  ever  had  been. 

You  see,  those  young  women  when  they  decided  to  take  on 
political  reform,  they  were  going  to  clean  everything  up  in  San 
Francisco,  these  lovely  young  ladies  of  the  nineties,  I  just  love 
to  think  about  them.  The  freedom  was  so  marvelous  for  them.  And 
they  wanted  to  use  it  to  make  things  better.   I  don't  think  they 
ever  were  conscious  of  what  their  names  meant  in  city  hall;  their 
fathers  had  all  been  very  successful  industrialists,  and  people  of 
self-made  importance  around  town. 

Morris:       They  seem  to  have  been  remarkably  long-lived. 
Charles:      Oh,  they  were,  indeed  they  were. 

Morris:       If  they  had  started  things  in  the  nineties  and  were  still  functional 
in  the  forties,  that's  a  tribute  to  what,  hard  work,  strong  ideals? 

Charles:      I  would  say  so,  yes. 

Morris:       Who  were  they  besides  Miss  Garden? 

Charles:      Mrs.  Mclaughlin,  and  Miss  Delaney,  and  Alicia  Mosgrove  who  was 
quite  a  figure  in  her  own  right. 

Morris:       Had  they  been  active  in  starting  the  San  Francisco  Center? 

Charles:      Yes,  they  were  together.   They  were  the  same  ones.  Mrs.  Effingham 
Sutton  too,  was  a  very  strong  character  and  a  beautiful  woman. 


San  Francisco  Center  of  the  California  Civic  League  Becomes 
the  League  of  Women  Voters 


Morris: 


Charles : 


My  understanding  is  that  the  Center  was  independent,  free 
standing,  and  then  merged  into  the  League  of  Women  Voters. 
And  the  Center  was  associated  with  the  statewide  California 
Civic  League. 

That's  right.   Later  thpre  were  people  on  the  board  of  the  League 


153 


Charles:      of  Women  Voters  who  felt  we  shouldn't  undertake  anything  from  the 
past  like  that,  knowing  that  the  League  women  nationally  wanted  us 
to  drop  all  the  local  welfare  type  things  we  did,  and  to  carry  on 
the  total  program  that  the  national —  Of  course,  we  could  adopt 
our  local  programs,  but  such  a  thing  as  the  Dance  Hall  Committee 
wouldn't  fit  with  the  sort  of  thing  that  they  were  talking  about. 
I  just  felt  that  these  women  had  been  running  something  too 
important  to  us,  and  to  our  stature  in  the  community,  for  us  to 
simply  offend  them  all  at  the  same  time  by  refusing  to  do  something 
we  could  do  easily. 

Morris :  This  is  the  older  women? 

Charles:  The  older  women,  yes. 

Morris:  — from  the  San  Francisco  Center  days? 

Charles:  Yes. 

Morris:  The  Center  had  been  broader  than  just  a  political  operation? 

Charles:      Indeed.   It  was  used  I  think  to  do  whatever  they  saw  needed  to  be 
done,  really,  and  throughout  the  state.   It  was  a  statewide 
operation,  you  know. 

Morris:       No,  I  didn't. 

Charles:      The  San  Francisco  Center  was  the  name  of  the  San  Francisco  branch 
of  it.   One  of  the  things  that  the  Center  used  to  make  its  money 
on — they  were  very  successful  financially,  was  what  they  called 
the  forums  that  were  put  on,  like  the  Commonwealth  Club,  with 
prominent  visiting  speakers.   Some  important  person  would  come 
in  and  they  would  put  on  a  program  and  charge  admission.  And  I 
had  an  opportunity  when  I  came  into  office  as  League  president, 
Madame  Pandit  was  coming,  so  I  invited  her  to  speak. 

Morris:       She  was  a  very  impressive  woman. 

Charles:      She  was,  very  much.  People  were  interested  in  seeing  her.  Our 

building  was  full — the  only  mistake  in  that  was  not  hiring  a  large 
enough  place.  We  were  just  packed  with  people  who  wanted  to  see 
her,  and  listen  to  her. 

Morris:       Some  of  the  programs  of  the  Center  did  continue? 

Charles:      Yes,  in  that  way.   I  would  be  severely  reprimanded  by  some  of  the 

people  from  the  national  League — not  reprimanded,  because  they  didn't 
work  that  way,  but  they  would  suggest  that  we  weren't  really  carrying 
out  League  of  Women  Voters'  program  when  we  did  something  like  that. 


154 


Charles:      We  needed  to  confine  ourselves  to — 

We  always  had  to  raise  our  own  money,  of  course.  The  local 
Leagues  support  the  national  League  by  sending  a  part  of  what  they 
raise  back  there. 

We  had  found  this  wonderful  way  to  raise  money,  which  seemed 
much  easier  than  tackling  all  the  men  in  the  community  for  money, 
which  the  League  embarked  on  doing. 

Morris:       Right,  the  community  contribution  sort  of  thing. 
Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       How  about  the  state  League  of  Women  Voters?  What  did  they  feel 

about  this  center,  if  the  center  had  been  a  statewide  organization? 

Charles:      I  think  the  San  Francisco  League  has  always  been  a  problem  to  the 
state  and  to  the  national,  because  we  were  very  independent,  and 
felt  that  we  were  quite  able  to  run  our  own  affairs.   [Laughter] 

Morris:       Did  you,  yourself,  ever  go  on  the  state  board  at  all? 

Charles:      I  was  never  invited  to  go  on.   I  was  the  most  independent  so  I  was 
not  popular  around  there.  Because  I  believe  that  if  one  was  going 
to  be  successful  in  the  community,  you  needed  to  have  wide 
experience.   I  didn't  confine  myself  to  the  League,  I  was  also 
with  the  Community  Chest,  as  it  was  in  those  days,  and  other 
welfare  organizations  I  believed  in. 

Morris:       And  the  League  felt  that  one's  primary  allegiance  should  be  to  the 
League  activities? 

Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       Was  the  independence  at  all  a  political  kind  of  thing? 

Charles:      No,  no,  we  were  all  very  careful  about  the  politics.  That  is,  as 
to  party  affiliations,  we  never  discussed  it  at  all.  Sometimes 
we  never  knew  what  somebody's  party  affiliation  was.   But  if  we 
had  any  idea  we  tried  to  be  sure  that  our  board  was  balanced,  with 
people  of  each  persuasion.   It  was  never  mentioned  at  a  board 
meeting  or  in  any  way. 

Morris:       I  was  thinking  of  it  more  in  points  of  view  on  topics.  Health 
insurance  was  a  hot  topic  the  League  got  involved  with. 

Charles:      Yes.   I  don't  remember  being  asked  to  take  any  position  on  that. 
Although  I  don't  know  how  accurate  all  this  I  am  telling  you  is, 


155 


Charles:      likewise,  Gaby;  I  hate  to  say  that,  about  the  issues  which  were 
hot  at  that  time. 

Morris:       I  was  just  using  health  insurance  as  an  example.  I  think  it  was 
a  few  years  before  you  were — 

Charles:      I  think  so,  because  I  can't  remember  that  that  was  any  problem  to 
us. 

Morris:       To  you.  Okay. 


Encouraging  New  Leadership 


Morris : 

Charles : 
Morris : 
Charles : 
Morris : 

Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 

Charles: 

Morris: 


Harriet  Nathan  recalls  that  you  appointed  her  to  her  first  major 
chairmanship  in  the  League. 

Maybe.   Did  I? 

Right. 

I  had  a  great  deal  of  respect  for  her. 

She  recalls  that  several  of  the  committee  members  were  much  more 
experienced  and  wiser  than  she.  And  I  wondered  why  you  appointed 
somebody  who  was  inexperienced  over  somebody  who  was  experienced? 

Because  it  is  very  important  to  give  younger  people  leadership 
experience  all  the  time,  and  I  was  very  careful  about  bringing 
in  new  people  whenever  possible,  and  seeing  that  they  got  jobs 
that  were  suited  to  their  talents,  because  it  doesn't  do  any 
good  if  the  League  narrows  itself  down  to  just  those  who  are 
experienced  in  what  the  League  of  Women  Voters  does,  and  has  no 
idea  of  what  the  rest  of  the  city  is  involved  in. 

That's  true. 

So  I  liked  people  who  were  active  in  other  groups  to  come  in  to 
help  us,  too. 

But  to  bring  them  in  and  make  them  chairmen  of  a  committee,  that's 
kind  of  a — 

Well,  I  think  Harriet  had  been  in  other  League  activities  prior 
to  that.  Would  Harriet  remember  that? 

What  she  remembers  most  is  that  they  were  older  and  wiser,  and  she 
felt  almost  that  they  were  there  to  advise  her,  and  to  train  her, 
in  a  sense.  And  I  wondered  if  that  would  be  part  of  your  thinking? 


156 


Charles:      It  might  have  been,  I  really  don't  remember  much  about  that 

incident.  But  I  would  try  to  make  committees  balanced  in  the 
depth  of  the  experience  of  the  people,  and  the  personalities. 

Morris:       And  in  a  sense  provide  somebody  with  more  experience  to — ? 

Charles:      Right,  who  could  keep  moving,  because  the  League  is  always  in 
need  of  leadership. 

Morris:       Does  that  same  kind  of  thing  of  encouraging  younger  people  from 
outside  other  organizations  apply  in  whatever  the  group  is? 

Charles:      I  think  so.   I  used  to  admire  what  the  Community  Chest  did.  They 
had  an  excellent  policy  that  was  really  quite  remarkable  to  watch 
in  forming  the  so-called  budget  committee  who  reviewed  the  budgets 
of  the  organizations  applying  for  next  year.  They  handpicked  from 
all  over  town,  whether  they  had  any  previous  interest  in  the 
Community  Chest  or  not.   If  they  had  any  skills  in  the  particular 
kind  of  thing  they  were  going  to  be  reviewing.   It  kept  the 
Community  Chest  base  broad.  I  thought  that  that  was  a  very  wise 
policy,  and  one  that  the  rest  of  us  could  emulate  in  our 
organizations. 

I  didn't  really  bring  people  into  the  League,  I  don't  think. 
What  I  tried  to  do  was  select  people  who  were  coming  along,  I 
tried  to  watch  these  young  ones  quite  closely  and  find  out  every 
thing  I  could  about  them. 

Morris:       Find  out  everything  you  could  about  them? 

Charles:      Yes.  Whether  they  would  be  qualified  to  move  ahead,  and  if  so 
in  what  way. 

Morris:       What  kinds  of  things  would  you  look  for? 

Charles:      I  would  look  for  what  kind  of  work  they  had  done  in  other 

organizations,  whether  they  had  a  background  of  some  research 
or  actual  experience  in  fields  that  we  were  working  in. 

Morris:       What  I  hear  again  is  an  interest  in  people  moving  from  one 
organization  to  another. 

Charles:      I  believe  that  people  should  be  experienced  in  more  than  one 
organization — if  I  am  repeating  myself,  I'm  sorry. 

Morris:       No,  no.   It's  a  point  that's  worth  making  again. 

Charles:      I  think  it's  the  only  way  that  you  get  a  sense  of  what  a  community 
is  all  about,  when  you  begin  to  have  a  little  experience  in 
different  kinds  of  organizations  that  that  community  has  fostered 


157 


Charles:      and  seems  to  be  responsive  to. 

Morris:       How  do  you  establish  some  continuity  for  one  particular  organization 
if  people  are  moving  back  and  forth? 

Charles:      I  don't  mean — you're  taking  this  too  literally.   I  don't  mean 
people  who  are  moving  back  and  forth.  I  mean,  people  do  good 
work  in  one  organization,  and  they  use  themselves  up  in  it,  and 
there  comes  the  time  when  they  do  better  if  they  step  aside  and 
do  something  else.   I  know  that  everybody  doesn't  agree  with  that 
theory  of  mine — I've  had  it  quite  strongly. 

Morris:       It  would  seem  to  me  that  there  might  be  a  fatigue  element  that 
would  set  in. 

Charles:      If  they  don't  want  to  do  that  kind  of  thing  any  more.  But, 
often  you  find  that  their  experience  can  be  very  useful  in  a 
brand  new  field  for  them. 

Morris:       That  the  same  ideas  and  skills  transfer? 

Charles:      Yes.   I  have  always  had  a  policy  for  myself  that  when  I  finish  with 
an  organization  I  get  out  of  that  organization.   It's  not  that  they 
don't  need  you;  they  don't  need  you,  that's  true.  You  get  an 
exaggerated  sense  of  whether  they  need  you  or  not.  And  I  think 
it's  important  to  get  out  of  it,  and  have  the  freedom  to  go  in 
which  ever  direction  it  wants  to  go  in.  You're  still  there 
if  they  want  to  find  out  anything  from  you. 


Advisory  Board  of  Health 


Morris : 

Charles; 
Morris: 
Charles ; 


Along  with  the  League  and  the  other  private  voluntary  organizations 
you  were  involved  in — I'm  not  sure  which  came  first.  You  served 
on  the  Board  of  Health  and  the  San  Francisco  Housing  Authority. 

That's  much,  much  later. 

Your  appointment  to  the  Board  of  Health  came  first? 

That  was  quite  early  on.  We  hadn't  had  a  Board  of  Health  here  for 
many  years.  They  had,  as  they  said,  thrown  out  the  baby  with  the 
bath  water.  We  got  a  new  health  director  who  read  the  city  charter, 
and  saw  that  it  was  provided  that  there  should  be  an  advisory 
board  of  health.  The  previous  health  officer  had  not  wanted  any 
advice,  so  he  just  discontinued  it  and  never  got  one  appointed. 
Then  several  of  my  doctor  friends  came  to  me  and  asked  me  if  I 


158 


Charles:  would  join  the  committee  that  they  were  then  setting  up  as  a 
potential  health  advisory  board  at  the  request  of  the  health 
director  who,  as  it  turned  out,  was  Ellis  Sox. 

Morris:       I  was  going  to  ask  if  that  was  when  he  came  to  San  Francisco. 

Charles:      Yes.   [J.C.]  Geiger  had  been  the  man  who  had  never  used  the 
advisory  board. 

Morris:       Apparently  he  was  kind  of  a  difficult  man  to  deal  with. 

Charles:      Well,  he  was  an  independent  sort,  he  wasn't  going  to  have  any 

interference  in  the  way  he  wanted  to  do  things.  He  had  all  those 
medals,  you  know,  that  he  wore  all  over  his  chest  and  that  kind 
of  thing.   [Laughs]   It  gave  people  a  sort  of  a  start. 

But  my  doctors  were  all  people  I  had  known  well.   Some  of 
them  went  to  college  with  me  or  else  knew  me  in  other  ways. 
They  knew  I  had  been  doing  organizational  work.  Naturally  they 
thought  I  would  be  a  great  secretary  for  their  committee.  That's 
what  they  like  to  do  with  women,  you  know,  on  these  committees. 
I  had  never  been  the  secretary  of  anything  before.  But,  of 
course,  it's  something  you  can  do  without  too  much  difficulty. 

Morris:       Was  the  secretary  purely  in  the  sense  of  keeping  the  minutes, 
or  was  it  a  more  managerial — ? 

Charles:      No,  no,  it  was  just  in  the  sense  of  keeping  the  minutes,  and  maybe 
calling  meetings  and  seeing  that  they  were  held,  and  that  sort  of 
thing. 

Morris:       The  paperwork. 
Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       Did  this  grow  in  any  way  out  of  the  Stanford  Hospital  auxiliary 
experience? 

Charles:      I  don't  believe  so,  no.  Well,  maybe  so,  because  one  of  the  board 

was  a  Stanford  doctor  who  was  very  much  interested  in  public  health. 
Another  one  was  a  doctor  that  I  knew  socially,  he  and  his  wife 
socially,  and  he  knew  something  of  what  I  had  been  doing  in  the 
community.   I  really  enjoyed  that.   It  was  a  little  change  for  me, 
that's  what  I  liked,  a  chance  to  do  things  that  were  completely 
different. 

Morris:       The  date  I  have  for  the  start  of  that  is  1958. 
Charles:      Is  that  so,  I  don't — 


159 


Morris:       That's  in  the  vita  that  you  gave  me  a  while  ago.  Was  it  the  mayor 
who  appointed  that  committee? 

Charles:      No,  the  CAO,  chief  administrative  officer.  You  know  San  Francisco 

has  this  dual  government.  The  mayor  apooints  half  of  the  commissions 
and  boards,  and  the  chief  administrative  officer  appoints  the  other 
half. 

Morris:       I  didn't  realize  that. 

Charles:      Yes.  The  chief  administrative  officer  was  the  appointing  officer 
in  this  case.  So  he  had  asked  the  doctors  to  please  look  around 
and  see  who  they  thought  ought  to  be  on  there.  They  would 
gradually  try  to  groom  a  few  people  to  be  on  there.  And  we  really 
had  a — I  had  a  wonderful  time  on  that  committee,  I  loved  it. 

Morris:       Who  was  the  CAO? 

Charles:      I  think  it  was  Thomas  Brooks,  but  I'm  not  positive  now.   I  knew 
Mr.  Brooks  from  my  League  of  Women  Voters  presidency  and  when  I 
would  appear  out  at  city  hall,  if  he'd  see  me  in  the  corridor 
he'd  say,  "Mrs.  Charles,  we  do  better  when  we  are  watched."  He 
was  a  sweet  man.   He  was  absolutely  adamant  about  what  he  believed 
in  and  didn't  believe  in.  And  years  later  when  we  decided  to 
try  to  start  an  auxiliary  out  at  the  county  hospital,  which  is 
under  the  direction  of  the  city,  which  it  shouldn't  have  been 
because  the  doctors  all  felt  that  it  should  have  been  under  an 
entirely  separate  commission. 

Morris:       The  hospital? 

Charles:      The  county  hospital,  the  public  hospital.   In  any  case,  he  knew 
who  I  was  so  he  had  no  objections  to  my  appointment  to  that. 

Morris:       What  is  the  difference  between  serving  in  something  like  a  public 
body  and  privately — ? 

Charles:      Well,  the  difference  is  one  of  knowing  as  much  as  you  possibly  can 
about  the  city  itself,  which  I  had  to  try  to  learn  about. 

Morris:       As  much  as  possible  about  the  city,  that  means  working  at  the 
actual  governmental — ? 

Charles:      Yes,  and  also  about  where  health  services  would  be  needed,  where 

the  Board  of  Health  functioned.  You  learn  so  much  in  those  things. 
I  remember  when  the  Board  had  health  inspectors  who  went  around 
and  inspected  the  kitchens  all  over,  of  restaurants,  and  the 
Chinese,  their  restaurants  are  always  marvelous  because  they 
cook  in  such  hot  fat  that  they  don't  have  any  problem  of 


160 


Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 


tainted  food.  But  the  one  thing  that  the  inspectors  always 
looked  out  for  was  the  hollandaise  sauce  because  it's  made  with 
the  same  sort  of  thing  that  a  laboratory  culture — 

That  things  thrive  in. 

— thrive  in,  and  a  lot  of  these  chefs  just  couldn't  stand  to 
throw  out  hollandaise  sauce  if  it  wasn't  all  used  up.  They 
would  like  to  put  it  at  the  back  of  the  stove  and  let  it  keep 
warm  a  little  bit,  which  is  the  worst  possible  thing  that  you 
could  do.   So,  those  were  just  generalizations  which  I  wouldn't 
have  know  about  without  being  on  this  thing. 

Was  there  much  resistance  to  the  idea  of  a  health  committee,  a 
Board  of  Health? 

No,  no  resistance  except  for  the  director  himself,  but  Ellis 
worked  with  us  and  treated  us  as  if  we  were  a  regular  board.  We 
would  make  our  recommendations  to  him  as  to  what  we  thought  needed 
to  be  done  around  town. 


You  said,  treated  you  like  a  regular  board, 
been  officially  established? 


This  is  before  it  had 


No,  I  mean  it  was  because  it  was  an  advisory  board,  and  there  was 
a  bone  of  contention  about  it.   See,  the  other  boards  do  appoint 
the  director  of  whatever  the  department  is  and  keep  an  eye  on  him. 
But  an  advisory  board  can't  do  anything,  if  nobody  wants  your 
advice. 

That's  an  interesting  distinction.  Would  something  like  the  Board 
of  Health  have  political  implications? 

Yes.  And  the  reason  the  Board  of  Health  had  been  abandoned,  too, 
was  that  there  had  been  somebody  on  the  board  feathering  his  own 
nest  in  purchases  that  had  to  be  made.   It  was  the  same  thing  with 
the  Housing  Authority  later  on.  When  I  came  on  that,  I  was  taking 
the  place  of  a  man  who  had  been  a  union  representative  who  had 
taken  great  steps  to  see  that  the  purchases  of  the  supplies  went 
somehow  through  him,  and  that  his  union  was  always  called  in 
whether  they  were  needed  or  not.   It  was  really — it's  amazing 
what  somebody  can  do  who's — 

One  of  the  standard  legends  about  San  Francisco  is  that  there  is 
an  unwritten  rule  that  there  shall  be  a  union  man  on  every  board 
and  commission. 


Charles : 


Yes,  it's  a  really  unionized  city. 


161 


Morris: 

Charles: 

Morris: 


Charles: 


Was  this  your  first  exposure  to — ? 

In  a  public  body,  yes. 

And  was  it  your  first  working  kind  of  contact  with  union  leaders? 

Yes,  but  I  don't  think  we  had  a  union  leader  on  this  advisory 
board. 


Housing  Authority  Concerns 


Charles:      On  the  Housing  Authority  we  did  have  a  union  leader.  He  was  a  very 
nice  man,  I  enjoyed  him.  He's  still  on,  I  believe. 

Morris:       I  couldn't  find  a  date  for  the  Housing  Authority. 

Charles:      It  might  have  been  about  '64  that  I  was  on  the  Housing 
Authority. 

Morris:       That  was  a  mayor's  appointment. 

Charles:      That's  right.  And  the  mayor  was — it  was  before  Alioto — Shelley. 
I  had  a  friend  who  was  a  Democrat  who  called  me  up  and  he  asked 
me  if  I  would  consider  going  on  the  Housing  Authority.   He  didn't 
want  the  mayor  to  ask  me  if  I  wouldn't  even  consider  it.  And  I 
said,  "Yes,  I  would.   I  would  enjoy  learning  about  that."  I 
didn't  really  consider  that  I  knew  anything  about  housing,  but 
I  would  set  about  to  learn. 

I  was  appointed,  much  to  everybody's  surprise  because  I've 
always  been  known  as  a  Republican,  although  a  terrible 
Republican.   I  don't  think  the  Republicans  point  to  me  with  any 
pride  or  know  about  me  anyway.  They  know  about  me,  but  they 
know  better  than  to  rely  on  me  for  anything,  because  I  am 
determined  that  I  shall  make  up  my  own  mind  about  political 
situations.   I  can't  support  somebody  just  because  he's  a 
Republican.   I  have  to  know  what  I  think  of  his  character, 
and  one  thing  and  another.  You're  not  supposed  to  do  that 
according  to  some  of  these  young  fellows  in  the  party,  local. 
And  I  just  said,  "Well,  I'm  sorry  but  I  can't.   I  can't  take 
party  then.  You'd  just  better  forget  about  me."  They  were 
glad  to  do  that  [laughs],  because  they  could  see  that  I  would 
be  kind  of  a  stormy  petrel. 

Morris:       That  would  probably  have  made  you  more  attractive  to  the 
Democratic  mayor — 


162 


Charles: 
Morris: 

Charles 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


I  think  so,  yes. 

Did  you  have  any  particular  contact  with  Mayor  Shelley  while  you 
were  on  the  Housing  Authority? 

No,  not  really.  Of  course,  you  have  to  go  and  be  sworn  in,  and 
you  went  to  his  office  and  that  happens  there. 

He  didn't  ask  you  in  for  a  little  chat  before  he  appointed  you? 

No,  he  didn't.  But  all  the  mayors  we've  had  have  tried  very  hard 
to  influence  the  Housing  Authority  to  do  certain  things,  which 
they  exerted  through  the  executive  director.   I  made  it  clear 
to  Eneas  Kane,  in  my  day  —  I  made  it  clear  to  Kane  that  I  wasn't 
going  to  take  any  orders  from  anybody,  and  he  knew  whenever  he  —  he'd 
just  have  to  report  that  I  was  kind  of  an  ornery  independent,  that 
I  wasn't  going  to  be  told  what  to  do. 

I  was  thinking  the  other  day  when  I  saw  that  this  young 
person  who  was  appointed  the  hospitality  appointee  for  the  State 
Department  here,  and  there  was  a  great  deal  of  competition  for 
it.  And  her  husband  had  died  recently,  and  it  turned  out  that 
she  was  a  young  black  woman,  and  it  said  that  she  had  had  a  job 
with  the  Housing  Authority  with  some  title  that  I  had  never  heard 
of  before.  But  that's  the  sort  of  thing  that  the  Housing 
Authority  would  be  asked  to  do. 

To  create  a  job  — 


Morris:       You  said  that  on  the  advisory  Board  of  Health  you  didn't  have  the 
power  to  appoint  the  director.  How  about  with  the  Housing 
Authority,  did  you  have  —  ? 

Charles:      Yes,  that  was  all  we  were  supposed  to  do,  I  think.  To  appoint 
a  director  and  an  assistant  director.  We  were  all  pleased  with 
the  way  Kane  was  running  it,  but  he  had  to  appoint  an  assistant 
and  we  were  very  careful  to  see  that  he  searched  widely  and  gave 
us  his  reasons  which  were  good  ones,  as  to  why  he  had  done  so. 
And  we  would  make  that  appointment  too. 

Morris:       There's  a  curious  kind  of  relationship  if  you  have  the  hire  and 
fire  power  over  the  housing  director,  but  the  mayor  is  trying  to 
influence  the  authority  through  the  director. 

Charles:      Yes,  yes,  that's  right. 
Morris:       Did  that  cause  any  —  ? 


163 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Charles:      No,  not  any  difficulties,  but  that's  what  I  said  before  that 

being  a  woman  has  some  advantages.  They  would  tolerate  this 

soirt  of  thing  more  in  a  woman,  kind  of  an  independence  that 
they  might  not  at  all  tolerate  with  a  man. 

Did  any  of  your  fellow  Housing  Authority  members  have  similar 
concerns  about  the  mayor  trying  to  make  your  decisions  for  you? 

No,  we  didn't  discuss  that  sort  of  thing.  One  of  the  things  I 
like  to  avoid,  especially  in  a  public  position  like  that,  is  a 
lot  of  backstairs  talk  which  some  people  enjoy  doing,  and 
getting  on  a  gossipy  basis  with  almost  everybody.   I  didn't  want 
to  do  that,  I  wanted  to  make  our  relationship  very  dignified  and 
out  in  the  open.   So  we  got  along  well  that  way. 

Morris:      There  is  a  theory  that  most  of  the  decisions  of  public  bodies  are 
made  behind  the  scenes. 

Charles:      You  can't  really  do  that,  because  of  the  Brown  Act  requiring  that 
public  bodies  meet  in  public.   It  was  in  effect  most  strongly 
when  I  was  on  the  Housing  Authority.  We  were  very  careful  about 
being  sure  that  we  didn't  make  our  decisions  behind  the  scenes. 
And  we  succeeded  very  well. 


164 


12.   STANFORD  HOSPITAL  AUXILIARY  IN  SAN  FRANCISCO,  1956-1958 
[Interview  6:   10  October  1977 ]## 

Community  Goodwill,  Move  to  Palo  Alto 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles: 


When  we  talked  about  the  Stanford  Hospital  Auxiliary  before, 
you  mentioned  that  the  trustees  had  thought  that  an  auxiliary 
would  be  a  good  idea  and  told  you  to  go  ahead.  What  did  the 
trustees  think  that  an  auxiliary  would  accomplish? 

They  were  thinking  about  community  goodwill.  To  bring  members 
of  the  community  in  and  be  a  part  of  the  institution,  which  is 
what  an  auxiliary  is  for,  and  it  is  what  you  keep  reminding  your 
volunteers  all  the  time.   If  they  aren't  the  harbingers  of 
good  will  from  the  hospital  to  the  community  and  back,  that  they 
really  aren't  worth  much  even  though  they  give  a  lot  of  service. 
They  need  to  consider  themselves  emissaries  from  the  hospital  out, 
and  from  the  community  in. 

Was  the  community  upset,  the  patients  and  things  like  that,  at  the 
thought  of  the  hospital  moving  to  Palo  Alto? 

No,  but  the  doctors  were  hesitant.  They  just  fought  like  cats  and 
dogs  to  prevent  that  move.  They  didn't  want  it  at  all.   Many  of 
the  doctors  did  go  down  to  Stanford,  but  even  the  ones  who  were 
going  down  thought  that  the  hospital  really  ought  to  be  here. 
If  they  could  have  kept  it  here,  they  would  have  severed  their 
connections  with  the  hospital  down  there  immediately. 

I  see.  Was  there  already  a  medical  school  in  Palo  Alto? 

No,  no.  But  many  of  the  preliminary  courses  were  courses  given 
on  the  campus.  Stanford  Medical  School  was  always  located  in 
San  Francisco. 

I  think  myself  it  [the  move]  was  a  very  sensible  thing  to  do. 


165 


Charles:      It  just  upset  a  lot  of  people.  It  upset  Friends  of  Stanford  who 

knew  about  the  financing  of  the  hospital  and  the  financing  of  city 
services.  They  were  afraid  that  might  not  continue  with  the  move 
away,  because  San  Francisco  was  contributing  to  the  support  of 
the  hospital  by  paying  toward  the  care  of  clinical  cases. 

Morris:       I  see. 

Charles:      UC  and  Stanford  shared  between  them  the  responsibility  of  taking 
care  of  the  indigent  local  patients.  Most  cities  have  a  health 
service  of  their  own,  including  a  hospital  and  care,  but  San 
Francisco  never  had  one.  They  just  turned  the  whole  job  over 
really  to  the  two  university  medical  schools. 

Morris:       And  that  was  historical  because  of  the  medical  schools  in  the  city 
which  could  take  on  that  clinic? 

Charles:      No,  no,  there  were  no  city  clinics.  When  Stanford  left,  then 

UC  was  the  one  who  would  have  to  take  it  all.  And  they  weren't 
very  pleased  to  do  it.  It  was  really  quite  a  decision. 

And  it  provided  the  doctors  with  "clinical  material,"  as 
they  call  it  rather  coldly.  They  worried  about  where  they  were 
going  to  get  it  when  they  go  down  to  Palo  Alto.   But,  of  course, 
there  are  plenty  of  ill  people  down  around  there.  And  there's  a 
whole  Veterans'  Hospital  there  which  avails  itself  of  the  Stanford 
services,  and  they  had  really  plenty  of  clinical  material  as 
they  call  it — 

Morris:       Yes,  but  you  can  see  how  they — 
Charles:      Yes,  but  they  need  it. 

Morris:       You  don't  think  of  volunteers  as  coming  in  contact  particularly 
with  the  medical  staff. 

Charles:      Well,  the  medical  staff  really  is  in  control  of  the  operations  of 

their  department  at  the  hospital.  Many  of  them  had  not  heard  about 
volunteers  and  weren't  at  all  sure  that  it  wouldn't  be  very 
disruptive  to  their  operations.   But  Leslie  Luttgens  talked  with 
them  one  by  one;  she  was  ideal  for  that,  having  a  doctor  husband. 

Morris:       Was  Dr.  [William]  Luttgens  on  the  staff  of  Stanford? 
Charles:      Oh,  yes. 

Morris:       Did  you  have  some  kind  of  an  idea  in  your  mind  when  you  said 

you'd  take  this  on  of  what  you  thought  a  hospital  auxiliary  should 
be? 


166 


Charles; 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris : 


Yes,  I  did  indeed.   I  had  been  interested  in  that  subject  for  a 
long  time — I  think  in  the  whole  subject  of  volunteers,  and  how 
they  could  be  useful.  And  I  had  observed  what  other  hospitals 
were  doing  with  them,  and  it  seemed  to  me  that  we  ought  to  be 
able  to  avoid  some  of  their  pitfalls  and  have  a  really  good 
operation  here. 

Even  though  the  hospital  was  moving  away  nobody  really 
believed  it  was,  you  know.  They  just  thought,  "Something  will 
happen  to  change  their  mind."  But  the  University  was  very 
serious  about  it.   I  used  to  be  uncomfortable  on  the  board  because 
I  would  try  to  defend  the  doctors.   Some  of  their  behavior  was 
just  inexplicable,  it  was  so  rough  and  they  would  go  after  the 
trustees  in  the  most  discourteous  way.   But  people  do  not  like 
change. 

This  decision  was  made  by  the  university  trustees  to  move  the 
hospital? 

Oh  my,  yes.  All  the  decisions  of  that  sort  are  ultimately 
made  by  the  trustees.  At  Stanford  they  didn't  do  it  at  first, 
but  they're  the  ones,  just  as  the  regents  are  the  ones  at  UC  who 
make  the  decisions,  so  there's  nobody  to  blame  but  the  trustees 
of  the  regents. 

On  something  as  major  as  moving  the  medical  school,  I  would  wonder 
if  the  doctors  perhaps  might  have  brought  the  original  question 
to  the  trustees? 

Oh  yes,  of  course.  The  doctors  wanted  to  know  what  the  trustees 
thought.  The  trustees  are  always  in  the  bind  of  trying  to  support 
their  staff  which,  of  course,  begins  with  the  president,  though 
some  of  them  don't.  Wally  Sterling  was  the  president  at  that 
time,  and  he  had  satisfied  himself  that  it  was  the  thing  to  do. 
He  was  really  what  is  called  in  some  universities  the  Provost. 

What  were  some  of  the  pitfalls  that  you  had  observed^- ? 

I  thought  one  major  one,  which  is  not  a  criticism  but  I  think  is 
a  hazardous  thing.  The  Children's  Hospital  has  several  auxiliaries, 
with  different  names,  which  benefit  different  wards  and  departments. 
And  it's  really  very  hard  to  manage.  One  so-called  auxiliary 
will  start  a  fundraising  event  and  then,  of  course,  they  don't 
want  any  other  one  of  their  own  hospital  auxiliaries  to  be 
competing  with  them.  All  those  things,  innumerable  things 
that  have  to  be  worked  out. 

And  it  really  makes  it  harder — 


Charles; 


Morris : 


167 


Makes  it  much  harder.  So  we  agreed  that  we  would  have  one 
auxiliary  for  the  whole  hospital,  and  that's  what  we  were 
organizing.  We  didn't  want  to  let  that  get  out  of  hand. 


You  wanted  to  concentrate  on  which  aspect? 
hospital? 


Service  in  the 


Charles:      Yes.  That's  what  you're  there  for. 


Getting  Started 


Morris:       Did  you  have  any  ideas  of  how  the  organization  should  function? 

What  its  tasks  might  be  and  how  you  would  like  to  put  it  together? 

Charles:      Yes,  you  had  to  have  a  person  on  the  staff  in  charge  of  volunteers 
who  placed  them  in  the  proper  area.  That  is,  would  talk  to  them 
and  find  out  what  their  experience  was  and  what  their  likes  and 
dislikes  were.  And  give  them  a  temporary  assignment  in  one 
department  of  the  hospital. 

We  were  very  pleased  to  find  out  the  doctors  were  not  going 
to  oppose  us.  They  were  very  glad  to  have  us  coming  in.  Not  only 
that,  but  we  asked  each  of  them  to  give  us  a  ten  dollar 
charter  fee  to  help — that  amounted  to  about  a  thousand  dollars — 
to  help  us  get  started.  And  they  did  this. 

Morris:       Even  though  they  had  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  future  of 
the  hospital  they  were  happy  to  have — ? 

Charles:      They  were  happy  to  have  the  auxiliary.  Those  who  opposed  going 
to  the  Stanford  campus  saw  it  as  an  anchor  to  San  Francisco,  you 
see. 

Morris :       You  said  that  you  began  with  a  whole  series  of  preliminary 
meetings. 

Charles:      Yes,  we  wanted  to  get  our  numbers  to  a  good  size,  so  what  we  did 

was  assemble  a  little  group,  Leslie  being  in  charge  of  the  volunteer 
end  of  it.   I  wasin  charge  of  the  overall.  We  needed  people  who 
would  be  good  f undraiswers ,  and  good  organization  people  who  could 
handle  the  total  organization,  that  sort  of  thing.  So,  we  invited 
a  few  people  who  were  interested  in  Stanford,  Stanford  Hospital, 
and  some  of  the  doctors'  wives.   I  was  very  anxious  that  there 
not  be  a  doctors'  wives  auxiliary,  which  would  make  it  very  hard 
for  everybody  too. 

Morris :       Is  this  a  hazard? 


168 


Charles:      I  wouldn't  describe  it  as  a  hazard.  We  just  had  some  doctors' 
wives  who  joined  with  everybody  else,  in  the  membership  of  the 
auxiliary.  We  used  the  initial  funds  from  the  doctors'  charter 
memberships  to  purchase  office  equipment,  et  cetera,  to  do  our 
paper  work,  and  we  had  to  adopt  bylaws  and  all  those  things  that 
organizations  have  to  do.   But  the  first  thing  was  to  get  started 
with  the  group  that  was  interested.   So  to  the  first  group  that 
came  we  described  what  was  going  to  happen,  and  invited  them  to 
bring  friends  to  the  next  meeting. 

Morris:       Was  the  first  group  primarily  people  that  you  knew  yourself? 
Charles:      Well,  Leslie  and  I  did. 
Morris:       Personally  acquainted? 

Charles:      Mostly,  I  think,  or  that  we  would  have  been  told  about,  because  the 
word  was  around  that  there  was  to  be  an  auxiliary.   People  in  the 
hospital  or  on  the  board  of  trustees  would  have  heard  it,  would 
let  me  know  any  time  a  name  came  to  the  fore  of  someone  that  was 
interested  in  being  informed.  We  asked  the  wives  of  all  the 
administrators — we  tried  to  be  sure  that  we  included  everybody. 
I  wrote  a  paper  on  how  to  organize  things.*  That  paper  is  still 
circulating  around.   I  just  gave  it  to  a  couple  of  young  women 
who  came  over  in  regard  to  the  school  resource  volunteers  which 
was  falling  off  a  little  bit. 

Morris:       Really?  The  San  Francisco  school  volunteers? 

Charles:      Yes.  And  they  wanted  to — they  were  going  to  have  to  start  asking 
them  to  pay  dues  which  they  had  never  done,  and  which  they 
naturally  might  feel  they  were  doing  when  they  gave  their  service 
instead.  But  in  most  organizations,  everybody  pays  dues 
regardless  because  there  is  work  to  be  done,  just  at  the 
organization  end  of  it.   I  told  the  girls  that  if  they  did 
that  they  were  going  to  have  to  be  awfully  sure  what  compensation 
in  feeling  these  women  got.   I  wondered  how  close  they  felt  to 
the  organization  and  the  leaders,  whether  there  was  a  gap,  because 
there  can  be  between  volunteers  and  leadership  which  is  really  not 
a  good  thing,  but  it  happens,  and  you  have  to  watch  out  for  it 
all  the  time. 


See  Appendix  II:  "Some  Thoughts  on  the  Establishment  of 
Successful  Auxiliaries,"  Caroline  M.  Charles,  copyright 
1960. 


169 


Morris:  I  can  believe  that.  So  you  feel  if  an  organization  is  going  to 
ask  for  dues  from  their  members  that  it's  only  going  to  work  if 
there  is  a  closeness  between  the  board  and  members. 

Charles:      Right,  if  they  all  know  what's  going  on  all  the  time.  Sheana 
Butler,  Lou  Butler's  wife,  was  the  one  who  came  over  for  help. 
She  told  somebody  that  that  paper  was  of  more  help  to  her  than 
anything  she  had  heard  of  before.  And  I  hope  I  have  another 
copy.  She's  going  to  have  it  duplicated,  she's  going  to  loan 
it  to  everybody  in  the  world,  I  guess. 

Morris:  Now  the  first  group,  the  first  meeting  that  you  had.  Would  you 
recall  how  many  women  that  would  have  been? 

Charles:      Yes,  I  would  say  that  was  about  fifteen  probably. 

Morris:       And  these  were  all  invited,  and  had  already  heard  that  you  had 
this  idea  in  mind. 

Charles:      Yes.   I  described  to  them  what  we  were  going  to  do  and  how  we 
hoped  they  would  want  to  join  with  us  in  doing  it,  and  if  they 
knew  others  who  might  like  to  come,  we'd  have  about  six  or  seven 
meetings,  I  would  like  to  ask  them  to  bring  them.  Because  we 
would  then  be  the  charter  group,  the  founding  group  of  the 
auxiliary.  That  was  a  scheme  that  worked  extremely  well  because- 

Morris:       And  Leslie  was  part  of  this  first  group? 

Charles:  Yes,  indeed.  She  was  already  working  with  me.  She  told  them 
what  she  had  done  already,  in  putting  things  together  for  the 
volunteers. 

Morris:       Do  you  recall  who  else  was  in  the  group  at  first? 

Charles:      No.   I  think  Leslie  remembers  things  like  that  better  than  I 
do.   But  I  am  not  sure  who  was  in  the  first  group. 

Morris:       Had  you  and  Leslie  talked  about  this  plan  with  the  hospital 
trustees  as  well  as  the  Stanford  trustees? 

Charles:      There  were  no  hospital  trustees.  That  was  one  problem.  The 
hospital  was  run  by  the  whole  Stanford  board  of  trustees,  and 
you  can  imagine  how  unsatisfactory  that  was.  Daily  business 
was  run  by  the  doctors  which  is  not  a  good  plan  because  they 
always  knew  what  they  wanted  but  they  didn't  know  what  the 
business  structure  needed. 


Morris : 


1  see. 


170 


Charles:     So,  after  the  auxiliary  was  born,  full  blown  like  Venus,  it  was 
really — I've  forgotten  how  many  members  we  had. 

Morris:      You  said  four  hundred,  I  think. 

Charles:     Yes,  over  four  hundred.  We  announced  that  we  were  established 

and  were  about  to  set  to  work.  We  had  a  marvellous  announcement 
because  we  got  hold  of  Wally  [Sterling]  and  Wally  came  up  and 
had  a  press  conference  for  us. 

Morris:      I  should  think  so. 

Charles:     And  we  were  on  the  front  page  of  the  daily  paper.   Stanford 

Hospital  was  front  page  news  all  the  time,  particularly  if  you 
could  get  one  of  the  leaders,  because  the  doubts  and  controversy 
about  whether  or  not  they  were  going  down  to  Stanford  were  still 
keeping  the  newspapers  interested  about  what  was  going  to  happen. 

Morris:      So  it  was  the  community  discussion  too,  that  was  in  the  press? 
Charles:     It  was  in  the  press,  oh  yes. 

Morris:      How  did  the  initial  group  of  women  feel  about  this  controversy 
about  whether  or  not  Stanford  Hospital  was  going  to  move? 

Charles:     Well,  we  weren't  going  to  talk  about  that  with  them,  that  wasn't 
our  function.   I  explained  to  them  that  that  was  a  decision  that 
had  to  be  made  by  the  board  of  trustees,  in  consultation  with  the 
doctors,  of  course.  The  doctors'  wives,  of  course,  had  lots  of 
opinions  which  they  had  heard  at  home.  Most  of  the  others  didn't 
know  the  pros,  the  cons,  and  couldn't  argue  about  it. 

Morris:      Did  this  cause  any  difficulties  in  your  discussions? 

Charles:     No,  not  a  bit.   I  just  said  that  I  thought  it  was  worth  doing, 

and  that  this  auxiliary  really  would  remain  here  if  the  hospital 
went  to  the  campus,  because  who's  going  to  pick  up  and  move  their 
whole  home  some  place  else  to  do  volunteer  work.  You  can't  do 
that. 


Morris:      It  was  already  known  that  a  hospital  would  continue  to  function 
in  San  Francisco? 

Charles:     We  didn't  know  that,  no,  because  the  Presbyterians  weren't  yet 

interested  in  trying  to  take  the  old  one  over.   It  never  crossed 
Stanford's  mind  that  we  could  do  anything  but  demolish  it. 

Morris:      I  see.   So  they  thought  it  was  just  going  to  be  a  time  limited 


171 


Morris:      thing,  the  auxiliary. 

Charles:     Exactly,  but  they  were  reasonable  about  it.  They  thought  it  would 
be  useful  as  long  as  it  lasted,  since  there  was  no  time  set  for 
the  move  yet. 

Morris:      And  you  were  willing  to  put  in  that  time  on  something  that  was — 

Charles:     Oh  my,  yes.   It  was  well  worth  doing,  the  good  will  for  Stanford 
was  enormous,  because  the  minute  you  give  people  something  to  do 
they're  very  grateful,  they  love  Stanford,  you  know,  alumni  wives, 
other  alumnae.  Just  the  way  you  feel  about  your  own  college.   And 
so  there  wasn't  any  serious  question  about  that. 

The  one  big  argument  we  got  into  that  really  amused  me  was 
over  what  color  uniforms  the  auxiliary  would  wear,  and  the  ladies 
were  all  squared  off  in  two  corners,  practically.   I  don't  know 
what  the  alternatives  were,  but  they — 

Morris:      [Laughs]  That's  marvelous. 

Charles:     It  really  was.   I  was  anticipating  something  like  that — disagreement 
about  something  relatively  unimportant — it  really  wasn't  worth 
fighting  about,  a  bone  of  contention  and  not  a  serious  matter,  and 
that's  exactly  what  happened.  So  what  I  did  was  to  appoint  a 
committee  on  uniforms,  and  I  put  the  most  vociferous  of  the  two 
opposition  groups  together  and  asked  them  to  come  back  next  time 
with  a  recommendation  that  we  could  follow.  And  it  worked  very 
well. 

Morris:      Did  they  manage  to — 

Charles:     Oh,  they  managed,  indeed  they  did.  And  it  really  worked  very 
well. 


Recruiting  Sponsors  and  Other  Special  Talents 


Charles:     We  had  a  very  smooth  organization.  I'd  gotten  some  marvelous 
people  that  I  knew  in  other  connections  to  come  in  who  would — 
We  wanted  to  have  an  opening  party  because  we  wanted  to  start 
raising  money  right  away.   Showing  that  this  would  be  one  of 
our  functions.   I  persuaded  Ursula  Stratford,  who  was  the 
Charlotte  Mailliard  of  the  time,  to  come  in.  And  then  I  had 
a  friend  in  the  Junior  League  who  was  absolutely  tops  in 
publicity,  and  it  was  she  who  said,  "I'll  get  you  on  the  front 
page  if  you  get  Dr.  Sterling  here  to  announce  the  auxiliary." 


172 


Charles:     And  Wally,  of  course,  was  always  very  agreeable  to  helping  in  any 
way  that  he  could. 

Morris:      Did  the  people  that  you  brought  in  from  other  organizations  stay 
with  the  auxiliary,  or  did  they  just  come  in  as  a — ? 

Charles:     Well,  they  stayed  for  a  little  while,  but  I  don't  think  to  the 
present.  After  all,  I'm  not  there  either. 

Morris:      I  was  thinking  about  the  initial  stage,  and  then  the  first 
transition. 

Charles:     Oh,  no,  they  stayed  during  the  first  year  or  two.   I  was  very 
grateful  to  them.   That's  the  way  you  can  make  use  of  your 
friends,  [laughs]  is  by  putting  their  real  skills  to  work,  you 
see.  Both  of  my  friends,  Anne  Simpson  was  my  publicity  expert — 
She's  moved  to  Carmel  now. 

Morris:      Still  doing  publicity  things? 

Charles:     I  told  her  I  just  didn't  think  in  Carmel  they  knew  what  she  could 
do.  As  soon  as  they  found  out,  she  wouldn't  have  a  moment's  peace, 
Maybe  she  wanted  peace,  you  know. 

Morris :      Did  these  women  already  have  commitments  to  other  organizations? 

Charles:     Yes,  but  they're  not —  For  instance,  parties  don't  take  place 
all  at  once,  you  know.  You're  not  doing  it  all  the  time.  And 
publicity  is  one  that  requires  very  much  attention  at  the  moment 
when  you're  seeking  it,  but  it  isn't  a  full  time  job.  Anne's 
love  was  always  the  Opera  Guild  and  the  Opera. 

Morris:      But  she  could  do  the  hospital  auxiliary — 

Charles:     All  she  needed  to  know  was  what  we  were  about  to  do,  and  then 
she  just  plucked  right  out  what  the  news  value  was.  She  was 
really — I  don't  put  her  in  the  past,  but  she's  not  here  any 
more — just  the  greatest  volunteer  publicity  person  that  I  have 
ever  known.  She  got  on  beautifully  with  the  women  of  the  press, 
and  she  really  knew  how  to  do  it. 

Morris:      Did  she  do  the  planning  and  the  contact  work,  and  then  have  other 
people  to  do  the  writing  of  the  stories,  and  that  sort  of  thing? 

Charles:     Oh  my,  yes.  Nobody  in  publicity  involved  in  the  organizations 
really  does  much  writing  that  is  actually  used.   They  call  up 
and  have  a  press  conference  and  have  information  sheets  ready 
for  publicity,  these  representatives  from  the  papers.  You  have 
to  be  sure  you  get  the  right  ones.  When  Anne  decided  that 


173 


Charles:     Wally  Sterling's  appearance  should  be  on  what  she  called  "cityside," 
she  had  the  city  reporters  in  rather  than  the  girls  in  the  women's 
page.   But  she  knew.  She  always  knew  what  she  was  doing.  You  can 
stub  your  toe  terribly  on  those  things,  you  know.  Just  offend 
people  and  never  be  able  to  take  care  of  it.   That's  why  I  wanted 
an  expert  in  it. 

Morris:      How  did  you  manage  to  talk  her  into  coming — ? 

Charles:     I  didn't  have  to  talk  much,  she  loves  to  do  it.  Everybody  here 
was  very  fond  of  Stanford  Hospital,  and  she  felt  a  stake  in  it, 
her  husband  was  an  alumnus,  and  she  was  interested  in  helping, 
if  what  she  could  do  would  help  Stanford. 

Morris:      How  many  of  the  original  people,  would  you  say,  either  were 
Stanford  alumnae  or  had  spouses  who  had  gone  to  Stanford? 

Charles:     I  would  say  a  very  high  percentage  to  start  with,  but  that  soon 
changed,  because  I  have  always  believed  that  any  volunteer 
organization  must  be  open  to  anybody  who  is  willing  to  work. 
The  minute  you  start  making  membership  requirements  you  make 
it  exclusive,  which  is  all  right.  We  have  a  place  in  society 
for  exclusive  organizations,  but  not,  I  believe,  when  you're 
going  to  try  to  be  serving  your  community  in  a  way  that  volunteer 
organizations  do.   I  believe  that  they  must  open  their  doors. 
And  then,  of  course,  you  must  have  a  very  good  training  and 
screening  program. 

Morris:      How  did  you  go  about  setting  that  up? 

Charles:     Well  now,  Leslie  and  I  worked  together  on  that.  We  both  knew 
people  that  we  had  known  in  other  organizations  who  had  done 
that  well,  and  got  them  to  come  and  help  us.  Because  you  know, 
people  that  do  volunteer  work  just  love  to  have  a  chance  to 
exercise  their  talents,  they  really  do.  You  don't  have  to  do 
any  awful  lot  of  persuading,  unless  you  don't  know  what  it  is 
that  you  want  them  to  do.   If  you  know  exactly  what  needs  to  be 
done,  you  need  so-and-so  for  a  special  reason,  they're  pleased 
to  be  asked,  and  glad  to  contribute  their  time.  That's  been 
my  experience. 

Morris:      Who  was  the  first  staff  person  who  was  with  you  as  coordination 
of  volunteers?  Do  you  remember  her  name? 

Charles:     Oh,  I  know  it  well,  she  was  married  to  a  Unitarian  minister  we 
had  here.  Leslie  will  remember  it.  Louise.   I  can't  remember 
whether  we  had  her  before  her  marriage.  That's  not  a  job  you 
find  a  great  deal  of  experience  in,  you  know. 


Morris: 


That  was  what  I  was  wondering,  if  she  had  had  any  experience. 


174 


Charles:     Not  much,  I  believe.  And  it  takes  a  certain  kind  of  personality 
to  do  it. 

Morris:      What  kinds  of  skills? 

Charles:     It  needs  skills  of  perception  of  what  it  is  people  really  want  to 
do,  and  enough  maturity  to  be  always  kind  and  helpful  to  these 
people,  realizing  that  they  have  come  because  they  want  to  help. 

Morris:      Kind  of  submerge  your  own  personality. 
Charles:     Right. 

Morris:      How  did  you  go  about  selecting  what  kinds  of  tasks  volunteers 
could  do  in  a  hospital  location? 

Charles:     That  was  really  Leslie's  department.   She  just  went  to  each 
doctor.  We  knew  from  other  experiences  with  hospitals  that 
volunteers  must  not  get  into  the  professional  aspects  of 
nursing  or  medicine.  They  have  to  be  very  careful  about  that, 
and  they  have  the  complete  cooperation  of  the  doctor  and  the 
nurses,  and  that  they  don't  step  on  anybody's  toes  because  that 
doesn't  do  any  good.  Volunteers  can  do  lots  of  jobs  that  they 
never  even  thought  of  before,  like  the  daily  wheeling  a  coffee 
cart  around,  or  a  tea  cart,  or  whatever  it  is  at  eleven  o'clock 
in  the  morning. 

Morris:      Had  Leslie  done  some  volunteer  coordinating  in  hospitals? 

Charles:     Oh  my,  yes,  back  in  Rochester  where  she  came  from.   I  was 

awfully  lucky  to  run  into  her  right  at  that  time.   She  just 
couldn't  have  been  a  better  person. 

Morris:      Aside  from  her  own  personal  experience  in  the  hospital,  what 
kinds  of  qualities  struck  you  particularly? 

Charles:     Of  Leslie? 
Morris:      About  Leslie,  yes. 

Charles:     I  think  her  ability  to  bear  the  details  in  mind,  and  keep  the 
detailed  part  of  the  thing  always  functioning.  Leslie  is 
extremely  businesslike,  you  know. 

Morris:      Out  of  that  four  hundred  you  started  with,  did  many  of  them 
appear  to  be  the  kind  of  people  who  would  move  on  into  the 
leadership  in  the  organization? 


Charles: 


Oh,  I  think  so,  lots  of  them.   Leslie  was  capable  of  following 


175 


Charles:     me.   I  think  we  had  another  doctor's  wife  who  was  president 
first. 

Morris:      She  mentioned  a  Martha  Bush,  and  a  Mrs.  Babe  Gamble. 

Charles:     Martha  succeeded  me  [1958-1959].  Babe  was  a  doctor's  wife  [Mrs. 
John  Gamble,  1959-1960].  He  was  one  of  Bill  Luttgen's  partners 
in  his  office.   She  was  a  Stanford  girl.  Martha  Bush  was  not  a 
Stanford  girl.  Her  husband,  Bob,  was  an  ardent  Stanford 
supporter.  And  Martha  was  a  most  engaging,  I  thought,  very 
sensible  person — direct  and  outspoken,  and  good.   She  had  done 
almost  no  volunteer  work  herself  at  that  time.  But  she  picked 
up  everything.   She  knew  how  to  do  what  was  expected  of  her, 
what  was  needed. 

Morris:      You  said  that  fundraising  was  something  you  wanted  the  Auxiliary 
to  get  into  right  away. 

Charles:     Right  away,  yes. 

Morris:      What  kind  of  fundraising? 

Charles:     Well,  any  kind,  but  it  was  mostly  parties,  giving  benefits. 

Because  it  keeps  your  name  before  the  public,  that's  important. 
And  also,  some  people  wouldn't  be  interested  in  the  rather  drab 
work  of  hospital  volunteering.  You  want  to  make  your  auxiliary 
with  as  many  facets  as  possible.  We  had  that  most  wonderful 
party — I  enjoyed  it  so  much  myself — that  Ursula  Stratford  and  her 
friends  put  on.  We  went  out  to  the  beach  and  took  one  of  those 
chalets  out  there  for  the  evening.  Nobody  had  done  that.  Most 
of  the  functions  had  occurred  at  hotels,  and  we  hired  a 
Pinkerton  man  to  keep  an  eye  on  funds —  Because  some  people 
come  and  pay  at  the  door,  which  is  a  big  headache  for  you 
because  you  don't  know  what  you're  going  to  do  with  the  money — 
they  pay  cash.   So  we  hired  a  man  from  Pinkerton 's  to  keep  an 
eye  on  our  receipts.   And  later  we  had  lost  some,  and  everybody 
was  convinced  that  he  was  the  fellow  who  had  taken  in,  which  was 
a  little  hard.  We  couldn't  prove  anything.  We  never  found  out 
where  it  went,  we  didn't  lose  much,  but  a  little  bit. 

Morris:      Did  the  group  break  into  people  who  enjoyed  the  fundraising 
activities  and  those  who  liked — ? 

Charles:     They  don't  really  separate  themselves  from  each  other,  but  there 
is  always  that.  You've  got  to  have  both  of  those  two  kinds  in 
any  group  when  you're  founding  an  auxiliary. 


Morris : 


And  they  don' t  separate  themselves? 


176 


Charles:     No,  no,  they  don't  set  themselves  off.  That's  up  to  the  president 
to  see  that  that  doesn't  happen.   She  really  should  try  to  see 
that  the  volunteers  themselves  have  enough  socializing,  so  you 
might  say,  among  themselves.   It's  very  important  for  keeping 
the  organization  going,  to  be  sure  that  the  volunteers  have  a 
way  to  get  together  every  so  often  and  exchange  views.  Very 
often  they  have  never  met  each  other  because  they've  worked  at 
different  hours,  you  know,  and  somebody  might  work  in  the  morning 
and  somebody  else  in  the  afternoon  or  evening  on  the  same  service. 
So,  we  always  kept  that  going  in  seeing  that  the  volunteers  had — 
It's  nice  to  do  that  in  somebody's  home.  They've  gotten  tired  of 
the  hospital  by  now.   They  need  to  come  out —  I  always  used  to 
use  my  house  for  that  sort  of  thing. 

Morris:      What  kind  of  activity? 

Charles:     We'd  have  maybe  a  potluck  supper.  Even  if  we  had  an  evening 

meeting  we'd  serve  coffee  and  cake,  or  tea  and  cake,  and  cookies. 
You  must  serve  food  at  those  things;  they're  bleak,  they're 
terrible  without  it. 

Morris:      Is  this  for  the  rank  and  file  volunteers  as  well  as  the  board? 

Charles:     Oh,  indeed.  The  board  is  neither  here  nor  there.  If  they 
want  to  come,  yes,  you  want  them  there,  but  it's  for  the 
volunteers  who  are  actually  engaged  in  the  work  every  day. 
Sometimes  you  have  somebody  who'll  tell  you  urgently  that 
they  can't  come  because  that's  their  night  to  volunteer. 
They  won't  come  to  the  party,  and  you  try  to  arrange  so  they 
can  come  if  they  want  to. 

You  also  try  to  get  yourself  a  group  of  sponsors,  a 
committee  of  well-known  people  in  the  town  who  are  known  for 
their  interest  in  whatever  you  are  trying  to  do,  to  give  you 
a  kind  of  status  that  they  share  with  you.   And  as  we  got 
toward  the  end  we  had  to  begin  to  designate  chairman  of  various 
things,  and  people  who  would  do  bylaws  and  who  would  be 
interested  in  other  aspects.  We  tried  to  find  out  what  people 
wanted  to  do. 

But  about  the  sponsors,  I  said  that  I  wanted  to  see  that  we 
had  a  committee  of  sponsors,  which  I  thought  would  be  very 
helpful  to  us  in  our  first  organization.  Because  the  first 
thing  that  people  look  at  are  names,  you  know.  Who's  behind 
this  thing?  So  I  asked  the  University  trustees'  wives  who 
lived  here  in  San  Francisco,  and  there  were  a  few  obvious 
people  of  that  sort.   I  asked  Mrs.  Harold  Faber  with  the 
agreement  of  my  group;  her  husband  was  a  very  distinguished 
doctor  with  Stanford.  Dr.  Faber  was  a  pediatrician,  and  very 


177 


Charles:     much  adored  by  patients'  families  and  his  associates.  Mrs. 

Faber  was  always  doing  things  for  Stanford  and  for  the  hospital. 
I  thought  she  would  be  just  ideal,  because  she  knew  all  these 
people.   So  I  just  asked  her  if  she  would  be  good  enough  to  go 
ahead  and  set  up  what  she  thought  looked  like  a  good  strong 
sponsor  list. 

Morris:      She  was  part  of  your  preliminary — ? 

Charles:     No,  no,  not  a  bit.  I  just  called  her  at  the  time  when  I  got  the 
agreement  of  my  group  that  that  was  what  we  would  do.   She  was 
just  ideal  for  that.  And  I  didn't  want  to  leave  her  out,  either. 
But  she  wouldn't  be  likely  to  be  doing  daily  volunteering  or 
enjoy  the  rather  labored  meetings.  She  was  much  older.   I  had 
consulted  with  her  frequently  in  setting  out  to  establish  the 
auxiliary. 

Morris :      There  were  cases  where  you  actually  went  to  particular  people? 

Charles:     Oh,  yes.   That's  what  I  point  out  in  my  little  list  of  organizing, 
how  important  it  is  to  be  sure  that  you  let  the  people  know  who 
should  know  what  you're  doing  so  that  they  don't  have  to  read 
about  it  somewhere.  If  they  do  that,  you'll  have  an  enemy 
instead  of  a  friend. 

Morris:      How  much  of  that  kind  of  detailed  work  can  you  delegate? 

Charles:     Not  too  much.   I  think  the  president  or  the  organizing  person 

has  to  do  a  great  deal  of  that  herself.  She  has  to  be  sensitive 
enough  to  know  who  really  has  to  get  in  touch  with  somebody  to 
make  it  emphatic  about  what  you're  doing. 

Mrs.  Faber  persuaded  people  to  be  on  the  sponsor  list  whom 
I  never  would  have  thought  of,  a  very  impressive  list. 

Morris:      Really? 

Charles:     Yes.  She  just  went  up  and  down  the  Peninsula,  reviewed  the  long 
list  of  friends,  and  acquaintances  who  she  knew  to  be  interested 
in  Stanford,  and  any  of  them,  I  guess,  who  were  appreciative  of 
Dr,  Faber's  services  for  their  children,  or  had  in  the  past, 
hated  to  decline  anything  she  asked. 


Interpersonal  Relations,  Developing  Continuity 


Charles:     But  we  had  a  member  of  our  group  who  decided  that  I  needed  to 
be  slapped  down  on  that  one,  and  she  told  me  that  that  was 


178 


Charles:     totally  unnecessary  to  do  that. 

I  said,  "All  right,  let's  understand  each  other.   I  am 
organizing  this.   I've  been  delegated  the  authority  to  do  it 
by  the  board  of  trustees,  and  I'm  going  to  do  it,  and  your 
objections  are  not  going  to  make  the  slightest  difference  to  me. 
There  are  just  certain  things  that  I  think  need  to  be  done." 
This  woman  went  out  of  the  meeting,  got  hold  of  Leslie  Luttgens, 
and  told  her  I  was  the  meanest  woman  she  had  ever  met. 

Morris:      Oh,  dear. 

Charles:     Well,  you  know,  I  didn't  care,  in  fact,  it  was  a  compliment  in 
that  sense,  because  when  you're  asked  to  do  something  and  you 
know  how,  nobody  forgives  you  for  giving  up  your  leadership 
to  some  ignoramus  who  doesn't  know  how.   She  was  a  young  woman 
who  had  done  a  great  deal  of  publicity,  but  she  really  didn't 
know  anything  about  organizing  things. 

Morris:      Do  you  think  that  she  thought  she  ought  to  be  organizing  this? 

Charles:     No,  she  wouldn't  know  the  people.  No,  no,  she  just  felt  that 

no  organization  worth  its  salt  needed  that  kind  of  support,  that 
you  would  be  able  to  get  that  from  the  organization  itself.  She 
took  issue  with  me  on  several  things. 

I  also  told  the  volunteers  that  I  have  always  had  the 
belief  that  volunteers  should  not  do  work  they  don't  enjoy,  and 
she  said  that  that's  altogether  too  frivolous  an  approach  to 
volunteering.   If  it  isn't  work,  they  shouldn't  be  doing  it. 
And  I  said  that's  not  the  way  to  look  at  it.  These  people  have 
to  get  something  from  it  as  well  as  giving,  and  by  enjoyment  I 
simply  mean  the  sense  of  giving. 

Morris:      That  doesn't  mean  it  isn't  hard  work. 

Charles:     That's  exactly  right. 

Morris:      Did  this  young  woman  stay  with  the  organization? 

Charles:     She  may  have.   I  didn't,  because  I  always  have  a  belief  when 
you've  organized  something,  it  has  to  take  off  on  its  own. 
You've  got  to  stay  behind  the  scenes  and  help  when  they  need 
it  but  not  keep  running  it. 

Morris:      Right.   I  was  thinking  about  during  the  organizing  and  initial 
period,  if  there  were  disaf fections  and  any  drop-off s  in  the 
original — 


179 


Charles:     I  don't  really  think  so.  But  you  know,  I  have  a  theory  that  in 

organizational  work  you  just  don't  worry  too  much  about  dissident 
people.  You  could  spend  days  and  hours  trying  to  smooth  the 
problems  of  people  who've  taken  issue  and  left  you.   It's  just 
better  to  go  get  a  new  person.  And  you  usually  find  out 
they  are  people  who  have  behaved  that  way  in  other  roganizations. 
Perennial  dissidents. 

Morris:      That's  interesting. 

Charles:     It's  really  not  surprising  to  me  at  all  when  a  person  gets  very 

difficult  to  deal  with  to  find  that  you've  been  warned  by  others, 
"Don't  ask  that  person  into  your  organization.  You'll  just  have 
nothing  but  trouble."  Some  people  just  tend  to  store  it  up  and 
keep  it  going.   Good  will  is  essential  in  these  things.   I  didn't 
mind  being  dictatorial  since  I  had  no  intention  of  remaining  the 
dictator  for  very  long.  That's  the  point  about —  I  believe  that 
when  you  start  to  found  something  you  have  to  stay  with  it  long 
enough  to  be  sure  it's  going  to  live,  and  to  keep  it  going  to 
get  its  own  life.   But  you  cannot  remain  at  the  head  for  a  long 
time.  This  is  hard  for  people  to  understand  very  well.  No  matter 
how  effective  you  are. 

Morris:      That's  almost  a  paradox.   If  you've  got  a  very  strong  person 

setting  something  up  who  knows  just  how  it  ought  to  be,  how  do 
people  then  develop  the  confidence  in  what  they're  doing  in 
order  to  be  able  to  come  along  as  successors? 

Charles:     Well,  you  have  to  start  that  out  very  early  and  usually  what  you 
do  in  a  group  at  the  beginning  is  to  try  to  identify  the  people 
who  would  take  responsibility  for  certain  aspects.   It  really 
just  worked  like  a  charm. 

Morris:      What  are  the  clues  that  somebody  will  take  on  a  major  responsibility? 

Charles:     You  have  to  very  directly  ask  them.  Describe  what  it  is  that  you 
want  done.  Of  course,  it  is  always  better  not  to  do  that  in  a 
public  meeting.   If  I  knew  at  the  next  meeting  I  was  going  to 
ask  Mrs.  Joe  Doakes  to  become  responsible  for  getting  bylaws 
together,  I  would  call  that  person  before  the  meeting  and  say, 
"I'm  going  to  ask  you  in  the  meeting  to  take  on  the  bylaws,  and 
we'll  appoint  you  a  committee.  It's  awfully  hard  work,  and  I 
want  to  be  sure  that  you  will  accept."  Because  if  you  have  a 
lot  of  turn-downs,  particularly  at  a  meeting,  that  isn't  good  for 
the  organization. 


180 


Morris: 

Charles : 
Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles ; 


Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


[Interview  7:   1  November  1977 ]## 

What  struck  me  was  that  you  said  that  you  felt  that  part  of  the 
strength  of  the  Stanford  auxiliary  was  that  there  were  people 
you  could  call  on  that  you  had  worked  with  in  other  organizations. 

Yes. 

I  wondered  if  that  is  the  idea  that  is  called  a  network. 

I  would  think  it  probably  is.   I  haven't  mentioned  to  you  that 
I  worked  a  great  deal  with  Arlene  Daniels  on  her  material  on 
volunteers,  but  I'm  sure  I  don't  agree  with  every  conclusion 
she  has  reached.   I  was  rather  startled  when  you  said  to  me  that 
volunteers  learned  what  they  might  be  able  to  do  professionally 
by  doing  volunteer  work,  that  Arlene  I  think  had  suggested  that. 
But  I  was  going  to  say  that  I  would  very  much  point  out  that  I 
believe  that  when  volunteers  go  into  volunteer  work  with  some 
extra  ambition  in  mind,  it  doesn't  make  them  good  volunteers  at 
all.   It  may  in  their  background  amount  to  a  great  deal  for  them. 
I  think  it  has  been  useful  to  young  people  doing  volunteer  work 
and  seeing  what  the  work  is  in  a  hospital,  for  instance. 

Career  exploration  kind  of  thing? 

Yes.  That's  done  a  good  deal  here.   I  think  many  of  them  have 
gone  into  it  after  that  experience.  But  I  think  that  volunteers 
really  must  go  in  because  they  want  to  do  something  for  somebody 
else.   If  they're  doing  something  for  themselves  all  the  time,  in 
that  way  I  don't  believe  it  makes  for  a  successful  operation. 

It  actually  interferes? 

I  think  so.  You  see,  one  of  the  things  I  most  feared  when  I  was 
doing  volunteer  work  myself  a  great  deal,  was  finding  that  certain 
people  who  had  ulterior  motives  were  coming  into  it.   It  really 
frightens  you;  you  don't  know  what  it  is  they're  going  to  try  and 
do.  They're  not  really  dedicated  to  the  thing  they're  doing  in 
a  way  that  you  need. 

What  kinds  of  other  motives  are  there  besides — ? 

The  League  of  Women  Voters  was  a  great  temptation  to  people  who 


181 


Charles:     wanted  to  go  into  politics  or  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  people 
at  city  hall  and  people  who  are  in  politics.  They  would  come  in 
and  volunteer  to  do  the  observing  which  is  what  members  do — people 
to  watch  the  boards  and  commissions  in  operation.  But  we  would 
soon  find  out  about  that  if  somebody  was  glad-handing  everybody 
and  generally  acting  like  a  follower,  rather  than  just  being 
there  in  a  judicial  way  to  listen  to  what  was  going  on.   So 
you  have  to  call  a  halt  to  that,  and  you  have  to  protect  your 
organization  that  way  from  people  trying  to  make  use — 

Well,  for  instance,  in  hospital  work  sometimes  there  are 
people  who  have  a  doctor  husband  or  are  related  to  doctors,  who 
would  like  to  advance  their  husband's  welfare  by  their  position 
in  an  auxiliary.  And  that  doesn't  work  either. 

Morris:      Your  experience  has  been  that  usually  people  who  do  have  an 
ulterior  motive  don't  work  out  well  on  the  job? 

Charles:     Yes.  Their  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  group  to  whom  you're 
giving  is  not  really  paramount. 

Morris:      What  do  you  do  in  a  case  like  that? 

Charles :     You  have  to  sit  down  and  talk  to  them  frankly  and  reason  with 

them  if  you  can.   Either  they  quit  in  a  huff,  which  is  the  best 
possible  solution —  [Laughs] 

Morris:      So  there  are  times  when  it's  better  to  have  less  volunteers? 
Charles:     Oh,  you  bet,  yes.  You  need  to  be  careful  about  those  things. 

Morris:      Do  people  with  such  other  kinds  of  motives  ever  actually  stay 
around  long  enough  to  become  involved  in  important  board 
decisions? 

Charles:  No,  not  really.  You  detected  them  long  since,  so  you  would  just 
have  to  be  sure  they  didn't  get  onto  your  board,  or  misrepresent 
you  to  the  public. 

Morris:      How  does  that  compare  with  the  other  kind  of  person  you  mentioned 
that  you  invite  to  be  on  a  board  because  they  have  a  position  or 
a  name? 

Charles:     Yes.  Well,  they're  very  different.  They're  people  who  are 

where  they  want  to  be,  and  are  secure.  They're  not  trying  to 
use  you  as  a  stepping  stone  somewhere.   I  remember  telling 
somebody  once  that  when  you  are  invited  to  be  on  a  board  you 
should  consider,  are  you  going  to  be  able  to  help  them,  or  are 
you  going  on  that  board  to  help  yourself  in  some  way?  Try  to 


182 


Charles:     be  honest  about  it.  We're  not  always  willing  to  be. 

Morris:      Is  this  the  kind  of  thing  you  could  ask  the  younger  women, 
newcomers  to  the  group? 

Charles:     Oh  no,  you  never  ask  anybody,  you  just  observe  what  they  do  and 
they  give  themselves  away  very  rapidly  because  of  their  seeking 
to  be  involved  in  certain  activities  they  think  will  be  more 
conducive  to  their  getting  acquainted  with  people  they  want  to 
know  whom  they  think  are  important.   Those  people  are  just  a 
nuisance.   They  start  calling  people  up  and  trying  to  get  on 
intimate  terms  with  people  who  work  in  the  auxiliary,  and  this 
doesn't  work.  Although  you  make  fine  friendships  in  volunteer 
work,  it's  not  because  anybody  is  going  to  capitalize  on  it. 
It's  because  you  like  the  way  the  other  person  looks  and  behaves, 
and  admire  them. 

I  was  always  pleased  when  my  friendship  with  people  with 
great  skill  was  such  that  they  would  come  to  help  me  with  an 
organization  when  I  asked  for  it,  but  I  didn't  intend  for  them 
to  have  any  place  in  it,  and  they  didn't  want  any  place  in  it — they 
were  already  so  busy  that  having  another  job  to  do  would  not — 

Morris:      They  wouldn't  take  something  on  just  to  have  another  job? 

Charles:     No.  And  the  organization  needed  their  position  in  the  community, 
you  see. 

Morris:      Is  this  part  of  this  kind  of  a  network  that  the  people  in  it  share 
the  same  idea  of  how  a  community  should  function? 

Charles:     No,  not  necessarily.  Because  what  the  real  network  is,  you  seek 

for  people  who  have  become  experts  in  certain  aspects  of  community 
work,  and  get  them  to  help  you  if  they  will. 

Morris:      Does  that  sometimes  work  the  other  way  around,  that  they  then  come 
to  you  and — ? 

Charles:     Certainly,  absolutely,  you  expect  that.   If  you're  asking  them 
to  give  their  time  you've  got  to  be  willing  to  give  yours  to  do 
something  that  would  please  them.  So  I've  always  stood  ready  to 
do  just  that  when  anybody  wanted  me  to. 

Morris:      Where  did  you  first  observe  this  kind  of  network  in  action,  in 
operation? 

Charles:     I  would  say,  if  you're  sensitive  to  those  things,  the  minute  I 

got  into  administrative  positions,  in  regard  to  whatever  organizatioi 
I  was  working  for.  You  begin  to  see  and  begin  to  recognize  the 


183 


Charles:     ability  in  other  people. 

Morris:      I  wondered  if  it  might  be  something  that  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  had 
introduced  you  to. 

Charles:     No,  I  don't  think  so.  Mrs.  Mclaughlin  and  I  really  didn't  do 
much  philosophizing  about  these  things.  We  just  talked  some 
about  what  she  had  done  as  a  matter  of  interest. 


184 


Transition — Hospital  Board  of  Directors//// 
[Interview  8:   8  November  1977] 


Morris:      We  were  going  to  go  on  today  with  hospital  auxiliaries. 

Before  we  get  into  that,  you  mentioned  just  as  we  turned  off 
the  tape  the  other  day  that  no  one  wants  to  join  a  dying 
organization.  That  struck  me  as  a  very  interesting  phrase. 
I  wonder  if  you  could  expand  on  that.  Are  there  any  signs  of 
when  an  organization  is  going  down? 

Charles :     The  thing  at  that  time  was  that  with  Stanford  having  announced 

that  they  were  leaving  we  were  starting  an  auxiliary  up  here,  it 
was  necessary  to  put  some  extra  effort  into  it.   But  it  seemed 
to  me  it  was  not  going  to  hurt  Stanford  down  on  the  campus  to 
have  a  good  successful  auxiliary  up  here.  And  the  loyalty  to 
the  hospital  was  just  the  same  as  the  loyalty  to  the  university. 
There  were  many,  many  people  who  loved  that  old  hospital,  and 
loved  the  doctors  who  had  worked  there. 

I  thought  I  would  say  something  about  the  new  board  of  the 
hospital.   They  made  us  put  a  member  of  the  auxiliary  on  the 
new  board  for  the  hospital.   There  had  previously  been  a  board 
composed  only  of  doctors, and  it  was  not  tightly  managed.  Well, 
the  first  thing  we  started  to  do  was  to  go  over  the  budget  with 
a  fine  tooth  comb,  and  all  of  us  just  pored  over  that.   I  had 
noticed  that  the  hospital  dining  room  where  doctors  ate  (this 
was  not  in  the  hospital  but  for  people  who  paid  for  their 
lunches) — 

Morris:      Visitors? 

Charles:     Yes,  or  I  suppose  staff  working  there.   It  was  losing  money  and 


185 


Charles:     I  couldn't  understand  that.  The  superintendent  of  the  hospital 
was  a  very  appealing  man,  a  slight,  good-natured  sort  of  fellow, 
highly  nervous.  He  called  everybody  doctor.  He  called  me  doctor 
the  minute  I  started  telling  him  anything  about  what  I  thought  the 
hospital  ought  to  do.  One  day  we  were  talking  this  over  at  a 
board  meeting — he  came  to  all  our  beard  meetings — I  said  I  called 
the  attention  of  the  board  to  my  realization,  and  I  expected  they 
had  noticed  it  too,  the  dining  room  was  something  I  felt  they 
could  do  something  about  immediately. 

And  the  superintendent  said,  "Oh,  well,  yes,  doctor,"  he 
said  to  me.   "Yes,  doctor,  absolutely.  All  I  have  to  do  is 
charge  fifteen  cents  more  a  sandwich  and  it  will  take  care  of 
itself."  "But,"  he  said,  "The  doctors  wouldn't  like  that."  We 
all  looked  at  him  in  some  astonishment  and  he  said,  "No,  they 
wouldn't  like  that.   They've  set  the  prices  for  that  dining 
room." 

So  Fred  Merrill,  who  had  been  good  enough  to  take  the 
chairmanship  of  the  new  board  said,  "We're  going  to  try  to  set 
up  a  new  kind  of  a  budget  now,  so  if  this  can  be  done  this  way, 
you  do  it  and  I'll  account  for  the  doctors."  So,  he  didn't  have 
any  difficulty  with  speaking  to  them  about  this. 

Morris :      How  did  the  doctors  respond  to  having  laymen — ? 

Charles:     They  were  delighted.  It  hadn't  occurred  to  them  to  do  it. 

I  imagine,  I  don't  know  (I  know  nothing  about  the  history  of 
other  hospitals) ,  but  I  imagine  that  in  many  cases  it  was  the 
doctors  who  composed  the  managing  board,  but  it  isn't  done  now. 
The  way  the  later  hospitals  were  run,  you  always  had  a  sort  of 
a  community  board.   So  they  were  delighted  for  us  to  take  some 
responsibility  off  their  shoulders.  So,  we  found  other  little 
places  where  a  little  financial  reform  would  not  do  any  great 
harm  to  anybody. 

Morris:      Was  your  thought  to  start  in  small  ways? 

Charles:     Yes.  Not  to  try  to  knock  everything  down  approach.  We  just 
found  lots  of  little  loopholes  where  we  thought  it  could  be 
managed  better.  And  the  administrator  was  a  very  competent 
fellow,  and  very  appealing  in  his  way.  He  was  really  devoted 
to  the  doctors. 


Morris:      Was  he  a  medical  man  himself? 

Charles:     No,  he  was  not.  That  was  quite  a  step  they  had  taken,  because 

up  until  that  time,  the  hospital  administrators  were  all  doctors, 
but  now  it's  more  of  a  lay  job,  and  I  heard  that  a  daughter  of  a 


186 


Charles:     friend  of  mine  was  studying  hospital  administration,  getting  a 
master's  degree. 

Morris:      Because  the  feeling  is  that  more  business  management  skills  are 
needed? 

Charles:     Yes.  And  the  interests  of  everybody  have  to  be  considered,  not 
only  the  doctors.  The  doctors  were  concerned,  of  course,  with 
the  proper  equipment  for  all  the  operating  rooms  and  that  sort 
of  thing.  Of  course  lay  people  are  concerned  about  that,  but 
they  want  to  be  sure  that  people  are  paid  properly  and  not 
extravagantly. 

Morris:      Were  the  salaries  for  the  employees  one  of  the  loopholes  that 
you  were  interested  in? 

Charles:     No,  they  seemed  to  be  quite  adequate.   I  think  we  ended  by 

raising  the  salaries.  Hospital  employees'  salaries  are  very 
standardized,  I  think.  But  not  every  hospital  will  tell  the 
other  hospital  what  they  do  or  what  they  pay  or  how  they  run 
it,  you  know.   It's  very  interesting.   I  was  in  the  Community 
Chest  at  that  time.  The  Community  Chest  made  grants  to  all  the 
hospitals  to  assist  with  the  indigent  patients  they  cared  for. 
They  would  try  to  read  the  budget  of  a  given  hospital,  and 
wonder  how  that  compared  to  any  hospital's  budget.  You'd  call 
another  hospital  to  see  how  they  did  it,  and  you  would  get 
nowhere. 

Morris :      Why  do  you  suppose  that  is? 

Charles:  I  don't  know,   it's  just  like  does  Gimbel's  tell — 

Morris:      — Macy's!   [Laughter] 

Charles:     Macy's,  yes,  and  I  think  there  was  a  very  strong  feeling.   I 
don't  know  that  it's  much  improved  nowadays,  but  in  any  case, 
it  seemed  as  if  there  would  be  many  advantages  in  trying  to 
understand  how  people  did  the  best  possible  job  of  management. 

Morris:      They  didn't  keep  in  touch  with  the  other  hospitals  in  town  to 
exchange  ideas? 

Charles:     No.  We  used  to  have,  and  most  organizations  do  that,  you 

know,  in  town.   Similar  organizations  have  their  own  little 
groups  that  meet  and  discuss  how  they  manage  things . 

Morris:      Do  you  suppose  that  that  custom  of  not  letting  other  hospitals 
know  what  your  hospital  is  doing  may  have  a  bearing  on  the 


187 


Morris:      situation  we  seem  to  have  gotten  into  now  where  there  are  more 
hospital  beds  than  needed,  and  some  question  about — ? 

Charles:     No,  I  don't  understand  that.  Somebody  has  to  analyze  why  that 
should  have  happened,  because  we  have  had  a  considerable  study 
on  the  subject.   I  think  there  is  a  hospital  commission  in  this 
state. 

Morris:      Yes,  there  is. 


Becoming  Presbyterian  Hospital 


Morris:      When  you  went  on  the  board,  was  it  still  the  Stanford  Hospital 
board? 

Charles:     Yes. 

Morris:      And  did  you  stay  on  when  it  became  the  Presbyterian  Hospital? 

Charles:     I  stayed  on  for  a  little  while,  but  my  close  association  with 
Stanford  made  me  not  very  welcome  with  some  of  the  excitable 
Presbyterians  who  came  in.  They  said,  "She  can't  be  loyal  to 
Stanford  and  to  us."  So,  I  was  eased  off  with  great  courtesy, 
you  know.   I  was  on  the  board  of  trustees  at  that  time. 

Morris:      For  the  university? 
Charles:     For  the  university. 

Morris:      Leslie  Luttgens  mentioned  something  about  there  having  been 

some  overtures  at  one  point  from  the  University  of  the  Pacific. 

Charles:     Well,  I  think  the  University  of  the  Pacific  was  anxious  to  extend 
its  image  into  the  Bay  Area,  if  they  could,  and  they  did  acquire 
the  dental  hospital.  We  had  a  dental  hospital  in  connection 
with  Stanford.  The  properties  up  here  were  going  to  be  very  hard 
to  dispose  of.  Nobody  could  really  disagree  with  the  Stanford 
University  for  being  willing  to  let  the  University  of  the  Pacific 
take  that  over.   It  was  a  very  well-managed  hospital — the  dentists 
had  done  it.  It  was  for  training  dentists.  One  of  the 
concerns  was  if  the  Presybyterians  were  going  to  continue  as 
a  training  hospital,  then  they  had  to  have  some  academic  base. 

Morris:      But  the  decision  was  not  to  move  the  dental  school  to  Palo  Alto? 
Charles:     Yes,  true.  That  wasn't  involved  in  the  whole  move,  it  was 


188 


Charles:     purely  on  the  basis  of  the  medical  side  that  they  were  going 
to — they  were  taking  the  hospital  down  to  Palo  Alto. 

The  Presbyterians  coming  in  was  a  little  bit  later  because, 
as  you  know,  the  University  of  the  Pacific  if  anything  is 
affiliated  with  the  Methodist  church.  And  the  Presbyterians 
are  very  proud  of  the  institutions  that  they  support,  as  they 
should  be.   In  the  early  days  of  the  organization  some 
Presbyterians  were  drawn  into  it — unknowingly,  there  was  no 
thought  about  the  Presbyterians  coming  in  as  a  possible  purchaser, 
but  when  those  who  were  in  saw  what  was  happening  and  realized  how 
much  many  of  the  doctors  who  did  not  want  to  go  down  to  Palo 
Alto  wanted  a  hospital  to  be  that  was  theirs,  they  could  see  that 
they  could  come  in  and  perhaps  provide  that  place  by  taking  over 
the  old  properties. 

Morris :      Had  there  been  a  Presbyterians  medical  facility  before  they  took 
over  the  Stanford  properties? 

Charles:     I  think  there  had  been  in  other  palces.  Presbyterian  Hospital 
is  one  of  the  big  ones  in  New  York,  I  believe,  so  that  they  had 
some  precedent  for  that. 

Morris:      Would  those  be  discussions  that  you'd  been  involved  with  as  a 

member  of  the  Stanford  Hospital  Board?  The  discussions  with  the 
Presbyterians. 

Charles:     No,  that  would  have  been  done  on  the  basis  of  the  trustees. 

The  trustees  had  appointed  a  special  committee  on  the  hospital 
which  would  deal  with  that  subject.   It  wouldn't  be  the  new 
hospital  board,  which  was  quite  correct,  because  it  was  too 
new  and  it  was  the  whole  interest  of  Stanford  that  had  to  be 
considered  in  making  such  an  arrangement. 

Morris:      Were  you  on  that  hospital  committee  as  a  trustee? 
Charles:     I  just  don't  remember.   I  may  well  have  been. 

Morris:      I  would  imagine  that  getting  the  auxiliary  working  would  be  a 
pretty  full-time  job. 

Charles:     Yes,  it  was  a  lot  of  work. 

Morris:      You  said  that  there  were  some  excitable  Presbyterians. 

Charles:     I  meant  to  say  that  they  got  quite  alarmed  about  my  trying  to 
serve  both  on  the  hospital  board  and  on  the  Stanford  board. 
They  thought  that  if  Stanford  was  going  to  start  a  new  hospital 


189 


Charles:     down  at  Palo  Alto,  they  thought  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  be 
fair  to  both. 

I  couldn't  take  it  seriously  at  first.  When  I  got  wind  that 
that  was  what  was  going  on,  I  was  perfectly  willing  to  bow  out 
because  I  have  always  been  on  too  many  boards  anyway.  They've 
made  a  great  success  of  things  over  here,  you  know. 

Morris:      Was  it  the  lay  people,  or  the  medical  people,  who  were  concerned 
about  your  loyalties? 

Charles:     It  was  the  lay  members  of  the  board.  But  that  was  all  right,  it 
really  wasn't  offensive  to  me  at  all.  And  I  don't  think  they 
meant  to  be  offensive.  They  just  thought  it  was  a  perfectly 
reasonable  consideration.  It  was  a  surprise  to  me  because  usually 
I  am  on  the  end  of  being  persuaded  to  do  something.  And  when  I 
realized  that  they  were  not  keen  about  my  staying  on,  I  got 
off  quickly. 

Morris:      That's  remarkably  fair-minded  of  you. 

Charles:     No,  it  isn't.  It  just  takes  a  little  common  sense,  I  think,  to 
realize — to  be  able  to  see  how  it  looks  from  the  other  fellow's 
point  of  view,  that's  the  whole  thing  in  life,  it's  what  you've 
got  to  do  all  the  time,  I  think.   So,  that's  what  I've  always 
tried  to  do  in  my  community \ork.  And  I  think  the  Presbyterians 
did  a  really  heroic  thing  in  restoring  and  making  it  possible 
for  the  doctors  to  have  a  hospital. 

I'm  trying  to  remember  how  they  solved  the  academic  problem. 

I  think  they  have  some  association  with  the  University  of  the 

Pacific.  We'll  have  to  get  Fred  Merrill  to  tell  us  about  that, 
I  think. 


Morris:      His  name  keeps  coming  up  as  I  talk  to  people. 

Charles:     Yes,  he's  been  a  wonderful  civic  worker  here  in  San  Francisco, 
and  a  fine  worker  for  Stanford,  too. 

Morris:      He's  a  fellow  alumnus? 

Charles:     Oh,  yes.  He  was  not  elected  to  the  board  of  trustees  until 
after  all  this.   But  he  is  on  the  board  of  trustees,  or  I 
guess  all  of  us  are  off  now,  we're  so  far  overage.  But  in 
any  case,  he  was  on  for  a  while. 

Morris:      He's  one  of  the  people  that  you  worked  with  in  a  number  of  things, 
isn't  he? 


190 


Charles:     Oh,  my,  yes.  I've  had  many  associations  with  Fred.  He's  a  very 
broad-gauge  man,  and  a  very  capable  worker  in  the  welfare  field. 
He  understands  something  about  people's  needs — you  know,  sometimes 
businessmen  don't.  I'm  always  so  keen  on  the  charitable  ends  of 
things. 

Morris:      I  remember  when  we  were  talking  about  the  Rosenberg  Foundation, 
you  said  the  businessmen  tended  to  look  at  the  financial  side  of 
things,  and  that  was  their  primary  criterion. 

Charles:     Right.  But  Fred  always  had  a  broad  way  of  looking  at  everything. 
I  really  admire  him,  and  do  admire  him  tremendously.  He's  retired 
now  completely.  He  was  an  executive  of  the  Firemen's  Fund. 

Morris:      Would  he  have  been  the  kind  of  person  who  would  have  worked  with 
people  in  the  Presbyterian  church? 

Charles:     Oh,  I  think  so,  because  he  was  certainly  on  whatever  hospital 
committee  was  appointed.   I  don't  think  the  trustees  confined 
their  appointment  there  to  just  the  people  on  the  board.  They 
had  people  like  Fred  Merrill,  and  others  who  were  interested  in 
the  welfare  of  the  hospital  up  here,  too. 

Morris:      I  was  wondering  if  it  would  be  the  kind  of  thing  where  somebody 
who  was  also  active  in  the  Presbyterian  church  structure  and 
organization — ? 

Charles:     Oh  my,  yes.   They  weren't  appointed  on  the  Stanford  committee, 
they  had  their  own  committee.   It  was  they  with  whom  we  had  to 
work,  you  see.  But  it  was  a  very  amicable  relationship  and 
effort  to  work  everything  out. 

Morris:      That  would  be  worth  pursuing  for  a  church  organization,  how  they 
go  about  deciding  to  move  in  and  take  on  a  major  responsibility. 

Charles:     The  organization  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  I  understand  it, 
well,  they're  all  different.   There  is  no  routine  organization 
for  a  church.  They  would  use  words  that  were  strange  to  me, 
like  "synod,"  whatever  that  was.   I  am  a  Methodist.   They 
would  have  to  get  permission — I  suppose  they  went  all  the  way 
up  to  the  top  echelon  in  order  to  get  permission  for  such  a 
large  enterprise  as  this. 

But  I  can't  answer  too  many  questions  about  that  because  it 
was  not  my  responsibility. 

Morris:      So  you  retired  gracefully  from  that  board. 
Charles:     Indeed  I  did. 


191 


Morris:      But  you  did  lend  a  hand  with  the  starting  of  the  auxiliary — 

Charles:     I  was  with  the  auxiliary  all  the  time.  I  was  the  first  president 
of  the  auxiliary  and  then  Leslie  was,  later  on  [1960-1962].  And 
then  I  told  you,  I  think,  earlier  about  the  time  that  the 
Auxiliary  wanted  me  to  run  for  the  nominating  committee  they  were 
setting  up.  They  had  set  up  a  new — the  best  way  of  putting 
people  on  a  nominating  committee  is  to  have  them  elected  instead 
of  appointed,  which  was  what  I  was  always  used  to.  So,  the  person 
who  asked  me  said,  "Of  course,  you'll  just  win  immediately." 
"But,"  she  said,  "I'd  much  appreciate  it  if  you'd  run."  I  said, 
"Oh,  no,  I  won't  even  get  many  votes,"  and  I  was  quite  correct. 
I  lost  completely.  Nobody  knew  me  at  all.  Even  within  the  two 
or  three  years  that  I  had  not  been  active  after  I  got  out  of  the 
presidency.  You  know,  glory  is  a  very  short-lived  thing.  So,  I 
was  not  at  all  painted  when  I  found  that  I  was  a  complete  flop  in 
running  for  a  member  of  the  nominating  committee  because  it  meant 
that  the  auxiliary  was  going  on  its  own. 


Pattern  for  Other  Hospital  Auxiliaries 


Morris:      What  from  the  San  Francisco  Stanford  auxiliary  was  useful  in 
helping  start  a  Palo  Alto  auxiliary? 

Charles:     I  didn't  really  help  them,  they  did  it  down  there  completely. 
The  only  way  I  once  helped  them  very  much  was  when  they  were 
having  great  difficulty  with  their  director  of  volunteers, 
within  the  hospital,  whom  the  hospital  put  in  their  budget 
instead  of  having  to  pay  it  from  the  auxiliary  money,  because 
our  money  was  pretty  hard  to  come  by.  We  had  to  raise  it 
through  dues  or  parties. 

Morris:      What  happened  with  the  staff  person  who  was  head  of  the  Palo 
Alto  volunteers? 

Charles:     What  had  happened  was  that  they  came  up  to  see  me,  some  members 
of  the  auxiliary,  and  asked  me  if  I  could  tell  them  what  to  do 
because  they  were  having  difficulty  with  the  director  of 
volunteers.   She  was  doing  something  the  board  didn't  approve 
of.   So  I  said,  "How  many  of  you  go  to  see  her  when  you  want  to 
tell  her  what  she's  doing  wrong."  "Oh,"  they  said,  "We  take 
two  or  three  people." 

I  said,  "Well,  you  must  not  do  that.  You  must  talk  one 
to  one  with  a  person  when  you're  trying  to  correct  them.  They 
don't  like  it  when  people  are  sitting  around  listening  to  what 
you're  saying." 


192 


Charles:     And  it  worked  very  well.  As  soon  as  they  were  persuaded  that  was 
the  way  to  go  at  it,  they  immediately  straightened  out  their 
relationship  with  this  woman  who  was  very  capable,  and  whom 
they  didn't  want  to  get  rid  of,  they  just  wanted  to  see  if  they 
couldn't  put  her  straight  as  to  what  it  was  the  board  of  the 
auxiliary  wanted  done  that  wasn't  being  done,  or  what  was  being 
done  that  they  didn't  approve  of. 

Morris:      Was  it  a  matter  that  the  board  was-  unhappy  about  the  director's 
relationship  to  the  board? 

Charles:     To  the  volunteers.   Something  that  was  being  directed  in  the 

hospital  was  not  what  they  wanted.   It  all  worked  out  very  simply 
once  they  just  reduced  the  number  of  people  who  tried  to  tell  this 
poor  woman  what  her  shortcomings  were.  You  know,  you  really  can't 
do  it  that  way. 

Morris:      How  do  you  go  about  doing  this?  You've  got  a  staff  person  who's 
got  strong  ideas  and  ability,  but  she's  not  doing  what  the 
organization  wants.  How  do  you  go  about  doing  that  without 
alienating  the  staff  person? 

Charles:     You  do  the  best  you  can.  You  just  get  an  appointment  and  see  her 
on  an  occasion  when  she's  not  going  to  be  embarrassed  by  anybody 
else  being  there,  when  she  can  speak  up  clearly  to  you  and  tell 
you  why  she's  doing  it  that  way,  and  you  try  to  explain  the 
reasons  why  from  your  point  of  view  it's  the  wrong  way  to  go 
at  it.  But  sometimes  she's  right  and  you're  not,  because  she's 
on  the  ground  and  you're  not.  So  they  were  able  to  work  out 
their  differences.  She  was  right  in  some  ways,  and  they  were 
right  in  the  others,  so  it  was  a  compromise.  You  know,  really 
all  you  have  to  do  is  to  try  and  think  about  how  it  looks  to 
the  other  fellow.  And  you  can  do  wonders. 

I  didn' t  have  any  special  knowledge  at  that  time  about  any 
of  these  things.  But  I  just  tried  to  imagine  how  a  person,  the 
staff  person  would  view  it,  and  how  you  could  avoid  embarrassing 
her  because  you  can't  get  any  place  with  anybody  if  you 
embarrass  him  or  her. 

Morris:      That's  true.  What  about  the  fact  that  board  members  change  from 
year  to  year,  but  your  executive  director  and  other  staff,  with 
luck,  stay  on? 

Charles :     Right . 

Morris:      Does  that  make  it  more  difficult  sometimes,  for  the  board  to 
convey  its — ? 


193 


Charles:     No,  it  really  doesn't,  because  you  have  to  make  up  your  mind 
who  is  going  to  be  the  one  that  always  talks  to  the  director, 
especially  when  there  are  any  problems.  You  can't  have  the  whole 
board,  or  any  member  of  the  board  going  to  her  and  trying  to 
straighten  things  out  on  their  own.  I  remember  when  I  was 
president  of  the  League  of  Women  Voters,  we  always  had  one 
employee  only,  and  that  was  the  secretary  in  the  office. 

The  first  thing  you  had  to  do  with  the  board  of  the  League 
was  to  be  sure  that  they  understood  that  if  there  was  need  to 
correct  this  secretary,  or  change  the  way  she  was  working,  the 
president  would  do  that.  That  nobody  else  on  the  board  would 
undertake  to  interfere  in  those  operations.   I  don't  know  why 
people  didn't  just  naturally  understand  that. 

Morris:      You  would  think  so,  except  that  sometimes  they  might  think  it 

would  be  easier  to  solve  if  they  just  went  themselves  quietly  and 
said,  "What  you're  doing  gives  me  a  pain." 

Charles:     Well,  you  can't  run  things  that  way.  You  have  to  have  a  kind  of 
hierarchy  of  things,  and  you  have  to  get  the  agreement  of  the 
hospital,  and  the  doctors,  too,  that  they  won't  do  that.   If 
there  is  anything  that  they  don't  like  about  what  the  auxiliary 
is  doing,  they  must  come  and  talk  to  the  auxiliary  and  not  to 
staff,  to  correct  them,  because  the  auxiliary  staff's  orders  are 
coming  from  the  board  of  the  auxiliary.  You  just  have  to  observe 
the  amenities  of  the  situation. 

Morris:      What  kind  of  person  do  you  usually  find  as  the  director  of 
volunteers? 

Charles:     At  that  time  we  were  just  feeling  our  way  as  everybody  was  in 
the  business—sometimes  you  could  find  a  person  who  had  worked 
as  a  volunteer.  You  would  need  somebody  who  would  try  to 
understand  the  professionalism  of  the  situation,  but  also  how  it 
is  to  be  a  volunteer,  because  some  staff  people  don't  have  any 
idea  how  to  work  with  volunteers. 

The  executive  director  of  the  volunteers  has  to  be  the  kind 
of  person  who  can  understand  when  a  volunteer  has  a  sick  child 
and  can't  come  in,  and  that  sort  of  thing.  She  also  has  to  carry 
on  a  relationship  with  other  staff  people  in  the  hospital,  so 
that  she  understands  the  professionalism  of  the  situation, 
because  she  can  very  often  observe  when  the  volunteers  are  doing 
things  that  the  nurses  couldn't  tolerate.  And  even  though  the 
nurses  might  not  complain  to  anybody,  she  might  see  that  person 
and  be  able  to —  It  would  then  be  up  to,  I  believe,  the 
executive  director  of  the  volunteers  to  come  talk  to  the  president 
of  the  board  of  the  auxiliary,  and  say,  "I  believe  we're  going  to 


194 


Charles:     have  some  serious  trouble  in  the  operating  rooms  if  the  volunteers 
don't  understand  this,  that,  and  the  other  thing." 

So,  you  end  up  with  making  some  very  strict  rules  as  to 
where  volunteers  can  venture  in  a  hospital,  and  where  they  can't. 
Bylaws  are  in  reality  an  assembling  of  do's  and  don'ts  for  the 
smooth  running  of  the  organization.  When  you're  really  connected 
with  anything  as  professional  and  serious  as  a  hospital  is,  you've 
got  to  observe  those  things.  After  all,  the  volunteers  are  not 
medical  people.   They  can't  give  you  a  diagnosis  of  your  case, 
even  if  they  think  they  can. 

Morris:      At  what  point  did  the  hospital  auxiliary  begin  raising  money  for 
the  hospital  needs  in  addition  to  for  the  volunteer  program? 

Charles:     That  is  taken  care  of  very  quickly.  You  try  to  make  your  dues 
sufficient  to  care  for  your  own  program.   The  dues  are  not 
designed  especially  to  purchase  things  for  the  hospital.   The 
hospital  is  then  requested  to  let  you  know  what  they  would  like 
the  auxiliary  to  do  for  them.  They  might  like  a  new  piece  of 
machinery  or  equipment  that  they  feel  they  can't  afford. 

Morris:      Was  that  a  part  of  the  reason  for  the  auxiliary  from  the 
beginning,  to  raise  money? 

Charles:     No,  not  necessarily,  but  it  always  has  worked  out  that  way. 

And,  of  course,  you  have  to  have  a  sensible  hospital  administrator 
who  is  not  going  immediately  to  see  the  auxiliary  as  a  source  of 
extra  funds  for  him,  because  nothing  breaks  down  the  good 
relationship  as  that  sort  of  demand,  so  to  speak. 

Morris:      If  the  volunteers  feel  they're  primarily  money  makers? 

Charles:     Yes,  that's  right.  The  most  important  thing  the  volunteers  do 
is  in  relation  to  the  hospital's  good  will  in  the  community. 
They  carry  it  out  out  of  the  hospital  among  their  friends, 
their  opinions  of  the  work  the  hospital  is  doing,  and  whether 
it  is  a  pleasant  place  to  be.  What  they  may  say  at  a  casual 
moment  is  more  important  than  anything  that  the  hospital  can 
try  to  disseminate. 

Morris:      Is  the  theory  behind  that  at  some  point  most  of  the  citizens 
in  the  community  are  going  to  be  patients  in  some  hospital 
or  other? 

Charles:     Oh,  I  think  so,  yes. 

Morris:      Did  you  ever  think  of  it  that  way? 


195 


Charles:     Yes,  of  course,  you  knew.  A  hospital  is  naturally  a  community 

concern.  You  never  know  when  some  relation  of  yours,  or  a  child 
or  anybody,  may  be  taken  care  of  by  any  hospital  in  the  community. 
And  every  citizen  must  feel  some  responsibility  for  what  is  done 
in  every  hospital  in  town.  Not  only  the  public  hospitals,  but 
the  private  hospitals  also  have  their  service  they  give  to  the 
citizens. 


Morris:      Right.  Did  you  have  a  part  in  setting  up  the  auxiliary  at 
San  Francisco  General  Hospital? 

Charles:     Indeed  I  did.   That  was  really  a  very  interesting  situation  there. 
The  hospital,  the  General  Hospital  in  San  Francisco,  I  think  still 
is  under  the  direction  of  the  chief  administrative  officer  of  the 
city.  Rather  than  having  a  separate  board  the  hospital  is  under 
the  general  operations  of  the  city,  and  the  Board  of  Health. 

Anyway,  there  was  a  woman  who  was  very  much  interested  in 
welfare  at  General  Hospital  and  she  had  gone  out  there  and  tried 
to  set  up  some  volunteer  work,  feeling  that  volunteers  could  be 
positively  helpful  out  there  where  there  weren't  quite  enough 
people  helping,  being  able  to  help.  So  she  herself  did  volunteer 
work,  and  gradually  began  bringing  in  little  groups  to  do  it. 
Then  she  decided  she  wanted  to  start  an  auxiliary.  And  the 
then-chief  administrative  officer  in  San  Francisco  said,  "I 
won't  have  women  meddling  in  our  affairs."  And  so  that  was  that. 

Morris:      Was  this  a  woman  you  were  acquainted  with? 

Charles:     No,  not  at  that  time.  And  she  started  talking  about  it  to 
everybody  she  could  find,  about  her  ill-reception.  She  saw 
correctly  what  had  to  happen,  which  is  that  people  of  some 
prestige  in  the  community  would  have  to  request  an  auxiliary 
be  established  out  there.   She  would  then  help,  but  she  saw 
that  you  just  couldn't  go  out  there — 

Morris:      You  needed  some  clout. 

Charles:     You  had  to,  to  start  it.  And  so  Mrs.  Nion  Tucker  [Phyllis]  and 
Mrs.  William  Roth  [Lurline]  and  a  few  people  like  that  were 
asked  to  set  up  a  committee  to  start  an  auxiliary.  And  at  some 
point  I  was  invited  on  the  committee  because  I  had  started  this 
other  auxiliary  and  they  thought  I  knew  something  about  doing 
it.   So  we  really  pitched  in  and  got  to  work  on  it,  setting  up 


196 


Charles:     an  organization.   Then  it  was  Mrs.  Tucker,  I  think,  who  had  the 
bright  idea  of  inviting  Mrs.  Clifton  to  be  the  director  of 
volunteers. 

Morris:      Now,  is  she  the  lady  who  had  been  trying  to  do  something? 

Charles:     No,  no,  she  was  a  person  who  had  great  experience  in  doing  welfare 
work  around  San  Francisco.   She  had  worked  with  juvenile  court. 
She  had  also  worked  with  what  was  called  the  Children's  Protective 
Agency  at  that  time.  That  was  a  marvelous  idea,  because  nobody 
could  have  done  what  she  did  out  there.  At  least,  this  is  a 
foolish  thing  to  say  because  I  think  they  have  quite  a  good 
director  now,  who  has  taken  Mrs.  Clifton's  place. 

I  was  president  of  that  auxiliary  for  a  time.  Phyllis 
Tucker  was  the  first  president,  and  I  think  I  was  the  next 
one. 

Morris:      And  that  is  Bill  Roth's  mother — Lurline? 
Charles:     Yes,  she's  a  wonderful  woman,  and  so  is  Phyllis. 

Morris:      Mrs.  Tucker  and  Mrs.  Roth  weren't  on  the  hospital  advisory 
committee,  they  were  asked  as  community  leaders? 

Charles:     Yes,  to  help  start  an  auxiliary.   That's  right.   The  Advisory 
Board  of  Health  was — by  that  time  I  had  been  on  it  for  many 
years— really  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  at  all.  We  were 
delighted  that  there  was  going  to  be  an  auxiliary  out  there, 
but  my  happening  to  be  on  that  was  irrelevant. 

[interruption  for  tea] 
Morris:      You  also  lent  a  hand,  did  you,  to  St.  Joseph's  Hospital? 

Charles:     Oh,  well,  yes,  a  number  of  other  hospitals  called  me  at  times  to 
look  over  their  organization  to  see  if  I  had  ideas  for 
improvement,  or  what  they  should  do  about  it.   I  enjoyed  doing 
that  very  much.  And,  of  course,  I  was  very  flattered  that 
anybody  wanted  my  attention.   I  used  to  make  speeches  all  up 
and  down  the  state  to  hospital  volunteers,  sort  of  inspiring 
them  with  a  sense  of  dedication,  I  think.   Because  I  believe 
that  women  need  volunteer  work  in  their  lives. 


197 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles : 


Spiritual  Rewards,  Fellowship,  Social  Responsibility 


Charles:     I  think  if  women  don't  give  something  of  themselves  to  somebody 
else,  they  suffer  acutely  without  knowing  what's  the  matter  with 
themselves. 

Morris:      Even  with  all  the  kind  of  needs  there  are  in  the  family  and 
children — ? 

Charles:     In  their  homes.   It's  not  the  same  thing  as  to  give  to  people  who 
can't  possibly  repay  you,  who  don't  even  know  that  you're  doing 
it  for  them.   It  is  this  kind  of  charitable  giving  that  is,  I 
think,  a  factor  in  one's  "healthy  mindedness,"  as  William  James 
calls  it. 

A  way  of  not  being  self-centered? 

Right. 

Of  seeing  yourself  in  a  different  perspective? 

And  I  think  it  has  some  spiritual  aspects  to  it  which  Americans 
steer  away  from,  you  know.  They  don't  like  to  admit  that  they  have 
any  such  reason  for  doing  anything  or  that  anybody  else  has. 
They  have  a  strong  sense  of  wariness  about  the  whole  religious 
question. 

Why  do  you  suppose? 

I  think  part  of  it  is  probably  our  sense  of  the  separation  of 
religion  and  state  that  we  shouldn't  try  to  drag  anybody's 
religion  into  anything  that  they  do.  I  certainly  never  talked 
about  the  religious  inspiration  when  I  talked  about  volunteers, 
but  I  talked  about —  There's  a  marvelous  quotation,  you  know, 
in  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes1  letters.  He  wanted  to  be  part  of  the 
action  and  the  passion  of  his  times.   I  used  to  quote  that  to 
my  volunteers  and  say  there's  no  way  you  can  get  as  close  to  what 
is  happening  in  life  around  you  than  to  be  a  volunteer  in  some 
organization  you  believe  in.  In  a  big  general  hospital,  you 
know,  life  is  just  flowing  all  around  you.   So  many  things  that 
happen  are  out  of  our  experience  unless  we  happen  to  be  working 
somewhere  where  we  see  them  happening. 

Morris:      That's  really  a  marvellous  statement. 

Charles:     I  thought  so,  yes. 

Morris:      It  catches  I  think,  the  feeling  that  seems  to  have  motivated 


Morris : 


Charles: 


198 


Morris:      you  in  so  many  things. 

Charles:     Well,  I  think  everybody  is  responsible  to  everybody  for  everything. 
I  never  have  felt  that  you  could  limit  your  responsibility  to  a 
group  immediately  around  you.   I  think  we  all  have  to  try  to 
extend  what  abilities  we  have  to  helping  anybody  who  comes  into 
our  care — our  neighbors  so  to  speak,  would  be  the  first  people 
who  come  close  to  us  and  whom  we  see  need  help.  And  I  don't 
mean  that  you  can  help  everybody  who  comes  to  you,  but  I  do  mean 
that  if  you  know  enough  about  them  and  you  can  see  how  you  can 
really  help  them  (you  can't  always  help  people  if  you  don't  know 
enough  about  them  to  know  what  is  the  most  helpful  thing  you 
can  do  for  them) — 

Morris:      And  that  concept  of  neighbor  extends  to  things  that  need  doing 
in  the  whole,  the  larger  community? 

Charles:     In  the  whole  community.  Well,  you  see,  our  literal  neighbors 
are  not  deprived  any  more.  We  all  tend  to  be  segregated  into 
our  own  economic  class,  and  it's  very  seldom  that  we  have  somebody 
living  next  door  who  needs  material  things. 

## 

[On  reading  the  transcript,  Mrs.  Charles  added  the  following  passage,  written 
on  June  14,  1978] 


Intentions  and  Close  Encounters  in  the  World  of  Volunteer  Work 


Charles:     This  is  not  a  world  in  which  you  can  blissfully  sleep  it  out, 
it  is  perhaps  more  necessary  than  in  other  working  worlds  that 
one  is  aware  and  alert  at  all  times.   Freedom  is  not  freedom 
from  thinking  which  needs  planning  and  pondering  over  events  until 
their  true  meaning  comes  to  light  to  you.   Relationships  are 
all  important,  not  only  with  those  you  are  helping  (if  you  are) 
but  with  those  with  whom  you  come  in  contact  who  may  fall  in 
neither  of  those  categories.  All  life  is  enhanced  by  being 
alert  and  aware  and  willing  to  think,  but  particularly  here 
in  the  world  of  volunteers,  where  nobody  is  compelled  to  work 
or  paid  for  it  except  in  enjoyment  or  self-esteem.   Honors  are 
meaningless  when  the  recipient  believes  they  are  earned  and 
courting  them  or  anticipating  them  is  unhealthy  in  many  ways. 
They  are  no  substitute  for  love  or  friendship  from  others  and 
are  not  earned  but  like  the  Grace  of  God  they  come  from  elsewhere. 


199 


Charles:      Our  own  dissemination  of  love  is  within  our  power,  and  grows  with 
exercise.  Most  of  the  women  I  came  to  know  in  volunteer  work  were 
happy  women  and  I  have  come  to  believe  that  giving  of  oneself  in 
service  of  some  kind  is  necessary  for  women's  mental  health.  Now 
Dr.  Jean  Baker  Miller  in  her  Toward  a  New  Psychology  of  Women  makes 
clear  that  actually  such  a  need  is  not  only  in  women  but  in  all 
humans,  and  that  it  is  only  society's  traditional  division  of 
labor  between  men's  work  and  women's  work  that  creates  an 
apparent  separation  of  qualities.*  This  is  true  to  my  observation 
and  I  am  deeply  appreciative  of  the  sound  research  she  has  done 
and  is  doing.  I  have  too  academic  a  side  of  my  nature  not  to 
feel  the  need  of  a  little  support  in  putting  forth  my  theories. 

[And  on  February  20,  1978,  Mrs.  Charles  wrote  for  inclusion  in  this  memoir:] 

Nowadays  it  is  assumed  that  the  household  is  a  responsibility  of 
both  husband  and  wife,  but  most  of  us,  I  think,  rather  felt  that 
if  the  husband  were  to  be  still  responsible  for  the  family 
income,  then  the  wife  should  retain  her  original  responsibility 
for  the  household  and  so  on.  For  myself,  I  had  observed 
households  where  the  young  husband  got  into  the  household 
management — and  I  found  it  most  unattractive.  We  all  had  our 
reasons  for  going  at  the  great  liberation  as  we  did,  "the  heart 
has  its  reasons,  which  reason  knows  not  of — " 

When  our  daughters  were  grown,  and  married  with  children,  my 
husband  was  deeply  concerned  with  their  welfare  and  how  we  could 
help  with  all  their  children.  I  said,  "I  wish  you'd  felt  such 
deep  concern  about  me  when  I  was  in  that  situation." 

"Well,"  he  said,  with  the  dry  offbeat  humor  I  always 
enjoyed,  "At  the  time  I  was  worried  about  young  husbands." 

But  what  experiences  I  have  had!   I  always  tried  to  keep  my 
family  amused  and  interested  in  my  activities  away  from  home. 
One  night  I  reported  the  remark  made  by  a  perennial  candidate 
for  the  state  legislature  at  a  candidates'  meeting  at  which  I 
was  presiding  for  the  League  of  Women  Voters.  After  my  intro 
duction  he,  jolly  soul  that  he  was,  said,  "Ladies  and  gentlemen, 
I  want  you  to  know  that  this  lady" — pointing  to  me — "has  the 
heart  of  a  lion!" 

At  this  recounting  at  the  dinner  table,  our  younger  daughter 
said,  "And  did  you  roar?"   at  which  my  husband  and  I  both  did 
roar.  This  is  the  daughter  who  said  to  me  the  other  day  when  I 
was  making  my  usual  response  about  the  age  of  someone  I  knew. 
"Now,  Mother.  Before  you  say,  'Oh,  somewhere  in  her  forties,' 
I  must  remind  you  that  both  of  your  daughters  are  in  their 
forties." 


200 


Charles:      I  was  astonished.   "But  how  can  your  father  and  I  possibly  have 
children  in  their  forties?  It's  incredible I" 

#// 

Charles:      I  have  always  believed  that  the  use  of  our  house  was  a  very  important 
aspect  of  my  work  in  any  organization.   I've  tried  to  make  my 
fellow  volunteers  a  part  of  the  warmth  of  it,  because  I  believe 
that  when  people  join  an  organization  they  need  something  more 
than  just  what  they're  going  to  do.  They  need  a  feeling  of 
fellowship  and  companionship,  and  some  realization  of  what  their 
individual  situation  is. 

We  were  recruiting  some  people  to  do  some  addressing  of 
envelopes  for  a  party  one  time  (I  always  said  I  would  serve  a 
little  food,  tea  or  coffee.   If  they  would  like  to  come  here  we 
would  do  the  addressing  here  and  I  would  extend  my  dining  room 
table),  so  a  couple  of  dozen  people  came,  and  I  didn't  realize 
till  much  later,  and  I  don't  remember  how  I  did  find  this  out, 
but  one  of  these  people  who  came  was  actually  hungry — kind  of  an 
elderly  person  who  really  didn't  have  enough  to  eat,  and  was  Just 
hoping  I  would  provide  enough  for  this  little  snack  I  was  having 
to  tide  her  over.   It  never  crossed  my  mind,  you  know.   And  that 
was  valuable  information  for  me  to  have,  and  a  rather  stupid 
thing  for  me  to  have  to  admit. 

Later  on  when  we  were  recruiting  volunteers  for  the  General 
Hospital,  Mrs.  Clifton  would  perceive  that  some  of  them  were  what 
she  called  "pensioners;"  they  were  probably  living  on  pensions 
from  something  or  other,  but  could  not  afford  the  carfare  out 
there  and  back.  And  she  would  ask  the  auxiliary  if  we  would 
pay  the  carfare  of  the  volunteers  who  really  couldn't  afford 
it.   So  we  did  do  that,  and  that  would  have  been  a  brand  new 
idea  to  me,  you  know.  You  have  so  much  to  learn  when  you  grow 
up  in  our  great  middle  class  in  this  country,  where  things  have 
been  comfortable  for  you  all  your  life. 

Morris:       How  did  the  pensioners  feel  about  getting  carfare  from  the 
volunteer  organization? 

Charles:      It  didn't  bother  them.  Mrs.  Clifton  would  know  exactly  how  to 
say  that  this  is  part  of  what  we  like  to  do  for  our  volunteers. 
There  was  never  any  difficulty  in  persuading  them  to  accept  that. 

Morris:       It  didn't  make  any  feeling  of  difference  between  the  volunteers 
who  got  carfare  and  the  volunteers  who  could  afford  it? 

Charles:      We  would  just  make  it  available  to  anybody,  I  think —  I  don't 

know  how  Olga  handled  that.   She  was  very  understanding  of  these 


201 


Charles: 
Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles! 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles; 


Morris : 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 


people  and  knew  how  to  make  the  approach. 

It's  a  really  timely  topic  because  one  of  the  questions  you  hear 
now  is  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  involve  some  of  the  people 
who  are  out  of  work  in  volunteer  activities,  for  their  benefit 
as  well  as  for  the  volunteer  work,  but  how  are  they  going  to  be 
able  to  afford  to  do  it  if  we  don't  pay  them.  Other  people  are 
saying  that's  not  real  volunteer  work — 

You  can't  make  blanket  statements  like  that,  I've  always  thought. 
You  really  have  to  look  at  the  situation. 

Giving  advice  to  other  hospital  auxiliaries  did  you  find  that 
there  were  many  differences  between  them  in  the  kinds  of  work 
they  did,  and — ? 

No,  very  few.  They're  really  all  doing  the  same  thing.  But  in  a 
big  public  hospital  you  see  patients  in  need  of  such  things  as  a 
night  garment,  toothpaste,  bedroom  slippers,  or  some  things  we 
take  for  granted. 

How  about  any  kind  of  liaison  between  hospital  volunteers? 

Well,  yes.  Nowadays,  I  believe,  there  is  a  good  deal.   I  was 
going  to  say  also  the  directors  of  volunteers  have  become  quite 
professional,  and  they  have  an  association  which  meets  periodically, 
once  a  month  or  something  of  that  sort,  and  discuss  what  they  do 
and  how  it  could  be  done  better. 

Have  you  kept  contact,  or  kept  an  eye  on  what  hospital  auxiliaries 
are  doing? 

No,  I  really  haven't.   I'm  a  great  believer  in  absolutely  putting 
behind  you  what  you've  done,  and  not  carrying  it  along  with  you  as 
something  for  you  to  watch  out  for.  It  makes  you  very  unpopular. 
I  had  my  first  taste  for  that  when  I  was  at  college. 

Really? 

In  my  sorority  we  always  had  a  few  "old  girls"  who  came  back  to 
be  sure  we  were  doing  everything  the  way  they  thought  we  should. 
We  never  were,  of  course. 

Not  doing  things  the  way  you  should? 

Not  the  way  the  "old  girls"  thought  we  should,  because  times 
change,  of  course.  And  I  just  thought  to  myself,  "I  am  never 
going  to  be  guilty  of  that  sort  of  thing."  But  one  day  I  had 
a  very  amusing  experience  in  that  regard.  I  met  a  young  college 


202 


Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles : 
Morris : 


woman  who  was  then  a  member  of  the  sorority  I  had  belonged  to ,  and 
I  mentioned  that  I  had  been  a  member.   She  said,  "You  should  come 
down  and  see  how  things  have  changed  since  your  day."  And  I 
thought,  "Oh,  boy."  But  I  explained  to  her  that  I  just  didn't 
think  it  was  a  place  I  wanted  to  be.  '  I  suppose  it's  important 
that  everybody  doesn't  feel  that  way. 

Had  you  had  a  really  unpleasant  experience  yourself  when  you  were 
president  of  your  sorority  with  the  "old  girls"? 

No,  not  really  unpleasant.  But  you  have  to  stand  up  and  fight  for 
what  is  contemporary.   I  began  my  life  doing  that  because  of  having 
all  these  aunts,  and  my  mother,  who  were  all  going  to  tell  me  how 
to  conduct  my  life  and  what  to  do. 

My  sisters  pleased  me  very  much  the  other  day  when  we  were 
all,  the  two  of  them  and  I  (there  are  three  sisters)  when  the 
three  of  us  were  together.  And  I  said  to  the  two  of  them  that 
I  really  had  one  regret,  I  felt  I  had  not  treated  my  mother  and 
mu  aunts  as  kindly  as  I  should  have.  My  little  sister,  Yardley, 
who's  the  gentlest  (my  sister  Maureen  and  I  are  much  alike — rather 
formidable  people,  if  I  may  say  so) — and  Yardley  said,  "Oh,  no," 
she  said.   "Caroline,  you  had  to.  You  did  it  for  us." 

Because,  of  course,  I  did  free  them  from  some  of  the  same 
kind  of  close  supervision  and  criticism  that  is  hard  on  a  young 
person. 

I'm  interested  that  you  accept  the  term  "formidable."  It  bothers 
some  people. 

Oh,  it  doesn't  bother  me  at  all.   I  always  thought  Mrs. 
Mclaughlin  was  formidable,  and  if  I  could  ever  be  like  Mrs. 
Mclaughlin  I  would  like  any  names  by  which  she  was  called. 

Formidable,  how  do  you  define  that? 

I  define  it  as  a  person  who  knows — if  you're  applying  it  to  a 
person — where  she's  going  and  is  going  there. 

And  knows  how  to  get  there? 

And  knows  how  to  get  there,  yes. 

I  think  it's  a  remarkably  valuable  quality.   That's  why  I  was 
sort  of  startled  when  I  discovered  that  some  people  were  not 
happy  to  have  it  applied  to  them. 


Charles: 


[Laughs]  When  I  was  in  the  League  of  Women  Voters  I  remember  one 


203 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Charles:      of  the  older  women  who  came  in  to  help  with  volunteers  said, 
"Now,  Mrs.  Charles  is  a  person  to  be  reckoned  with." 

I  really  had  to  chuckle  about  that.   I  didn't  know  exactly 
what  she  meant.   But  I  suppose  anybody  who  is  willing  to  stand  up 
for  what  they  believe  in  is  to  be  reckoned  with. 

Were  Mrs.  Tucker  and  the  older  Mrs.  Roth  in  that  same  category  of 
formidable  ladies? 

Not  to  the  same  degree.  Yes,  they  are  in  one  way.   Because 
they've  never  actually  taken  part  in  the  political  pulling  and 
hauling  that  goes  on  when  you  have  worked  in  the  League  of  Women 
Voters,  or  some  of  these  other  organizations. 

Morris:       Would  they  be  of  the  same  generation  as  Mrs.  Mclaughlin? 
Charles:      Though  at  least  ten  years  younger — 

Morris:       But  would  they  have  been  part  of  the  group  that  worked  with  Mrs. 
McLaughlin  when  things  needed  attending  to? 

Charles:      No,  not  at  all.  They  lived  different  lives  entirely.  Of  course, 
I  don't  know  where  Mrs.  Roth  grew  up.  Gaby,  I  can't  remember 
whether  the  Matsons  lived  in  the  islands  or  here. 

Morris:       I  think  she  did  spend  quite  a  lot  of  time  in  America. 

Charles:      Oh,  yes,  I  think  so.  Phyllis  Tucker  had  always  lived  a  very  social 
life.   She  started  many  of  San  Francisco's  most  cherished  social 
traditions.   It's  very  nice  that  she's  done  that,  and  that's  a 
very  important  contribution.   I  think  she  is  formidable  in  her 
own  way,  probably.   I  think  Mrs.  Roth  would  be  too.  Neither 
one  of  those  women  would  be  imposed  on  in  any  way. 

Morris:       That's  interesting  then  that  they  got  involved  in  starting  an 
auxiliary  at  San  Francisco  General. 

Charles :      Yes . 

Morris:       Which  you  would  think  would  be  a  very  useful  thing  to  have  on  the 
community,  but  not  with  the  same  kind  of  social  cachet  as  a 
Stanford  Hospital. 

Charles:      They  don't  need  it,  they  give  social  cachet,  as  you  say. 
They  are  already  dignified  by  society's  approval. 

Morris:       But  they're  willing  to  take  on  occasionally — 


204 


Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles : 


Indeed  they  do. 
lovely  people. 


Both  of  them  are  really  very  generous  and 


So,  Bill  Roth  comes  by  it  naturally,  his  concern  and  interest 
for  the  community. 

Well,  except  he's  much  more  politically  liberal  than  anybody  in 
his  family  had  ever  been.   I  think  there  was  a  tremendous  shock 
in  the  ranks  when  Bill  became  a  Democrat  and  ran  for  political 
office. 

Well,  they  sent  him  to  Yale,  what  did  they  expect? 

Yes,  I  suppose  so.  He  is  a  lovely  man.   I  really  cherished  my 
friendship  with  Bill.  The  last  ten  or  twenty  years  I  haven't 
known  Bill  as  well  as  earlier,  but  he's  a  very  unusual  kind  of 
a  person. 


205 


13  STANFORD  UNIVERSITY  TRUSTEE,  1954-1974 
[Interview  9:   18  January  1978] « 

Appointment  and  Fellow  Trustee 


Morris: 


Charles: 


We  are  going  to  talk  this  morning  about  your  experiences  on  the 
Stanford  board  of  trustees.   I  was  looking  through  the  interview 
that  we  did  a  couple  years  ago;  you  said  a  few  things  there  that 
I  wanted  to  ask  you  about  some  more.   The  first  thing  is  how  you 
went  about  orienting  yourself  to  the  work  of  the  board.  You  said 
that  it  took  a  while  to  absorb  the  workings  of  the  university  and 
how  people  behave,  and  how  the  professors  act. 

Let  me  begin  a  little  further  back  than  that.  I've  been  very 
fortunate  in  my  temperament  that  I  have  never  dreamed  of  honors 
I  might  receive.   It's  a  terrible  handicap  to  do  that,  because 
you  can  suffer  so  much.   Anything  that  is  subject  to  the  whim  of 
a  number  of  people,  you  can't  really  count  on.  If  it's  something 
you  can  achieve  by  being  an  expert  on  this,  that  or  the  other 
thing,  it's  different.   The  custom  of  the  board  of  trustees  when 
they  elect  a  new  trustee  is  that  the  president  of  the  board 
calls  upon  the  person  selected.  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  was  the  president 
of  the  board  at  that  time.  One  day  he  telephoned  me.  I  know 
horn  but  not  well,  and  I  was  very  surprised.  He  just  said,  "I  wonder 
if  I  can  come  and  call  on  you." 

I  said,  "Well,  Lloyd,  I  don't  think  it's  appropriate  for 
you  to  come  all  the  way  out  here.  I  will  come  and  call  on  you  at 
your  office."  He  became  very  flustered;  he  didn't  know  what  to 
say.  But  he  said,  "No,  I'd  like  to  come  to  see  you." 

I  said,  "Well,  I'm  going  to  be  downtown  tomorrow  if  that 
would  help."  "Well,"  he  said,  "All  right."  I  was  so  astonished 
when  he  told  me  I'd  been  elected  to  the  board,  subject  to  my 
acceptance,  of  course,  that  I  merely — I  had  never  even  dreamed 


206 


Charles:      of  such  a  thing  happening  to  me.   It  just  seemed  to  me  it  was  far 
away  from  anything  that  was  a  possibility. 

Morris:       Why  did  you  think  that  was  beyond  your  expectations? 

Charles:      I  just  thought  it  was  a  different  kind  of  person  than  I  was.   I'm 
not  a  person  who's  a  good  fundraiser;  I'm  a  fair  fundraiser,  but — 

Morris:       Was  that  what  the  Stanford  trustees  usually — ? 

Charles:      They  need  people  who  can  do  that  easily.   I  just  don't  do  it 
easily.  Not  only  that,  but  I  just  thought  I  didn't  have  the 
qualifications  for  that.  When  Lloyd  told  me  what  he  wanted,  I 
said,  "Lloyd,  I  just — I'm  absolutely  astounded."  He  said, 
"There's  no  one  in  the  community  who's  done  as  much  for  Stanford 
and  for  the  community  you  live  in  than  you  have.   It  would  be 
impossible  to  overlook  you." 

I  said,  "I  would  never  refuse  such  an  honor.   I'd  love  to 
do  it,  but  are  you  sure  you  made  the  right  choice?"  He  said, 
"There's  no  question  about  that.   It's  our  choice  and  we've 
made  it." 

Morris:       Did  you  decide  right  then  to  take  the  appointment,  or  did  you 
wait  to  discuss  it  with  Mr.  Charles? 

Charles:      I  decided  immediately  that  I  would  do  it  if  it  was  in  earnest  to 
me.   Because  it  would  be  a  thrilling — it  was  a  thrilling 
experience.  Farmer  Fuller  was  on  the  board  at  that  time.  His 
son,  Farmer,  has  been  on  the  board  almost  all  during  the  time  that 
I've  been  on,  but  this  was  the  older  Farmer  Fuller. 

Morris :  The  second? 
Charles:  The  second. 
Morris:  Then  his  son  was  appointed  to  the  board — ? 

Charles:      Shortly  after  I  was.  He's,  of  course,  Farmer  III.  We  had  a  most 
amsuing  incident  one  year,  when  his  son  was  graduating.   The  young 
people  come  up  and  hand  to  the  announcer  their  name  so  they  can 
call  out  the  names  correctly  for  the  diplomas.  Young  Farmer  had 
come  up  and  said  he  was  Farmer  Fuller  IV  and  that  caught  the  ear 
of  those  kids.   Thereafter,  you  had  John  Jones  I;  somebody  else 
the  second.   It  was  really  very  amusing. 

Morris:       That's  marvelous. 

Charles:      The  whole  stadium  was  just  roaring  with  laughter. 


207 


Morris : 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles 


Morris : 


Is  there  now  a  Farmer  Fuller  V? 

I  don't  know;  there  may  be.  I  wouldn't  say  there  is  or  isn't. 
I  don' t  know. 

Was  the  elder,  Farmer  Fuller  II,  somebody  that  you  were  well 
acquainted  with? 

I  was  acquainted  with  him.  He  was  a  very,  very  witty  and  attractive 
man,  as  is  Farmer,  his  son.  He  was  very  much  in  demand  as  a 
toastmaster  at  dinners  and  things.  He  was  president  of  the 
Bohemian  Club.   One  of  the  very  popular  citizens  around  San 
Francisco.   Id'  met  him  in  the  course  of  my  earlier,  other  worthy 
causes. 

Were  you  considerably  younger  than  the  other  members? 

The  first  meeting  I  went  to,  I  thought  I  had  never  seen  so  many 
old  men  in  my  life.  There  was  one  woman  who  had  been  elected  a 
few  years  before,  a  lovely  woman  with  whom  I  became  great  friends. 
Well,  I  must  go  back  and  say  that  at  the  time  I  was  elected,  they 
had  decided  to  expand  the  board — the  size  of  it.  They  were 
electing  five  trustees  at  once.   [Tea  is  served]  They  elected 
five,  of  whom  two  of  us  were  women.   They  elected  four  men:  Dave 
Packard  was  one  of  them.  All  were  much  younger  than  I. 

David  Packard  was  also  a  Stanford  alum.  Wasn't  he  on  the  group 
of  trustees? 


Charles; 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles; 


Most  of  us,  I  think,  were,  but  not  all  of  us  at  all.  Jim  Crafts 
of  Firemen's  Fund  was  elected  and  he  was  not  an  alumnus.   I 
don't  know  if  I  can  remember  all  those  who  were  elected,  but  in 
any  case,  I  particularly  remember  Dave  because  he  was  extremely 
kind  to  me  on  the  board. 

In  what  way? 

He  wanted  me  to  be  appointed  chairman  of  the  buildings  and 

grounds  [committee].   I  said,  "Now  look,  Dave.   You  know  that 

no  woman  has  ever  held  a  job  like  that  on  the  Stanford  trustees." 

"No,"  he  said.   "But  I  think  you  could  do  it  and  I  want  you 
to  do  it."  So  I  was.   I  don't  think  I  would  ever  have  been 
appointed  to  such  a  job,  and  I  had  a  marvelous  time  doing  it. 


Good.   So  Mr.  Packard  convinced  the  rest  of  the  board. 

Oh,  yes.   I'd  been  working  with  him  on  that  committee, 
been  the  chairman  of  it  and  was  getting  off  of  it. 


He  had 


208 


Morris : 


Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles 
Morris : 
Charles 


If  five  of  you  came  on  at  the  same  time,  did  anybody  sit  you  down 
and  talk  to  you  about — ? 

We  didn't  have  what  you  might  call  an  orientation,  but  we  had  a 
lot  of  written  material,  which  was  interesting  reading,  about  the 
history  of  the  university.   I've  always  had  a  policy  on  any  new 
board,  but  particularly,  of  course,  on  a  board  of  such  importance 
as  the  Stanford  board,  of  not  doing  much  talking  til  I've  been  to 
about  five  meetings.   They  met,  at  that  time,  once  a  month.  Here 
in  San  Francisco,  which  was  a  great  convenience  to  all  of  us. 

Whereabouts  would  they  meet  in  San  Francisco? 

They  had  an  office.   Stanford  always  has  an  office  in  San  Francisco. 
It  is  now  in  the  Pacific  Mutual  building,  which  is  on  the  corner  of 
California  and  Kearney.   I  was  chairman  of  the  buildings  and  grounds 
and  was  the  one  who  informed  the  board  that  we  had  to  get  new 
quarters  because  we  were  on  top  of  the  Balfour  Building  at  that 
time.   If  the  wind  blew,  the  windows  rattled,  you  were  in  a 
constant  draft,  and  there  was  only  one  restroom  there  up  on  that 
floor.   The  men,  of  course,  had  appropriated  it  for  years. 

The  reason  they  were  very  fond  of  Mae  Goodan,  who  was  the 
one  woman  who'd  been  elected,  about  two  or  three  years  before  our 
group,  she,  of  course,  never  made  them  uncomfortable  in  any  way, 
but  they  couldn't  say  the  same  thing  for  me.   In  any  case,  I 
informed  the  board  that  it  was  very  necessary  for  us  to  be  in  a 
place  where  women  could  have  the  use  of  a  restroom  and  where  we 
weren't  as  uncomfortable  as  we'd  come  to  be  in  the  Balfour 
Building. 

Do  you  recall  the  first  of  the  trustees'  meetings  you  went  to? 

Yes,  I  do. 

What  kind  of  an  experience  was  that? 

I  guess  our  real  troubles  with  the  students  hadn't  yet  begun — as 
intensely  as  they  were  a  little  later  in  the  sixties.   I  was  very 
concerned  that  the  students  get  a  fair  hearing  and  that  the 
trustees  try  to  understand  them  a  little  better  than  they  seemed 
to  be  able  to. 

But  I  did  hold  my  comments  at  those  first  meetings.   I  said 
to  myself,  now  look,  you  don't  want  to  be  on  this  board  just  in 
order  to  impress  the  men  with  your  willingness  to  agree  with  everythl 
they  do.  You  want  to  be  on  here  to  discuss  your  opinion,  even  if 
it's  contrary  and  you  lose  all  your  friends,  you'd  better  do  that. 
So  in  about  two  or  three  meetings,  I  spoke  up  and  explained  to  them 


209 


Charles:      that  these  students  they  were  treating  so  harshly  could  very  well 

be  their  own  children  or  grandchildren.  Which  of  course  they  were, 
in  other  places,  or  even  down  at  Stanford. 

It  seemed  very  foolish  to  me  not  to  try  to  understand  what  it 
was  they  were  protesting.   I  said  the  Vietnam  War  was  more  than  they 
could  stand.  They  did  not  want  to  be  killed,  and  this  is  what  the 
young  people  were  picketing  about,  I  thought,  and  it  was,  too. 
Of  course,  they  behaved  terribly.  They  looked  so  awful  in  those 
hippie  days.   It  was  really  almost  revolting — dirty  hair  and 
dirty  clothes,  ragged  clothes.  All  of  them  were  children  of 
people  who  were  very  well  able  to  see  that  they  dressed 
properly. 

Morris:       Had  you  been  acquainted  with  Wallace  Sterling  before  you  came  on 
the  trustees? 

Charles:      Of  course.  Wally  has  an  amazing  memory.  He  knew  most  of  the 
graduates .  When  you  went  to  somethere  where  Wally  and  Anne 
were,  Wally  always  knew  who  you  were. 


Building  and  Grounds  Committee 


Charles : 


Morris ; 


But  I  was  not  acquainted  with  him  more  than  just  a  casual 
acquaintance,  but  I  must  say,  it  was  a  marvelous  experience, 
especially  with  the  buildings  and  grounds  committee.   Wally 
was  especially  interested  in  the  buildings  on  the  campus  and 
having  a  hand  in  them.   So  Wally  and  I  met  at  eight  o'clock  in 
the  mornings. 

Having  observed  the  way  that  the — this  was  after  I'd  been 
on  for  a  year  or  two — observed  the  way  the  buildings  and  grounds 
committee  conducted  itself;  it  seemed  to  me  it  was  very  necessary 
that  more  preliminary  work  go  into  it  before  it  ever  came  to  the 
board.   It  was  very  hard  for  the  board  to  understand  what  it  was 
they  wanted  to  do.  The  proposals  came  mostly  from  the  staff. 
Sometimes  the  chairman  of  the  committee  would  not  have  even 
seen  the  site — seen  what  it  was  they  were  proposing  to  do,  and 
where.   So  I  would  set  up  this  committee  meeting  early,  early  in 
the  morning  some  day,  like  maybe  ten  days  before  the  next  meeting, 
so  that  we  could  get  something  into  the  agenda  that  would  help 
illuminate  what  they  wanted  to  do.   I  had  also  noticed  there  were 
more  ill  feelings  evolved  from  buildings  and  grounds  than  you  could 
believe. 

Why  is  that? 


210 


Charles:      Isn't  it  strange?  Because  people  get  very  emotionally  involved 
with  architecture  and  you  just  don't  know  it  until  you  watch 
them.  Everybody  thinks  he's  an  authority  on  it,  you  see. 

Morris:       Would  this  be  in  the  faculty  that  was  going  to  be  in  the  buildings 
or  was  it  the  trustees  themselves? 

Charles:      Well,  no.  By  the  time  it  got  to  the  trustees,  there  was  no 

faculty  being  considered.   There's  a  certain  committee  procedure 
that  things  go  through.   The  faculty  must  look  at  the  plans  and 
make  suggestions.  The  people  who  are  going  to  occupy  the 
building  have  something  to  do  with  it. 

Another  innovation  I  made  was — we  had  a  very  formal  way  of 
selecting  the  architect.  Every  architect  in  the  Bay  Area  wanted 
to  do  something  at  Stanford.  We  didn't  want  just  a  hodge-podge 
of  buildings.  We  wanted  things  that  would  have  some  relation  to 
each  other.  We  also  bore  in  mind  that  the  alumni  were  particularly 
wedded  to  the  red  roofs  of  Stanford.   Every  time  they  heard  there 
was  a  building  going  up  that  wasn't  going  to  have  a  red  tile  roof, 
we  got  wildly  critical  communications. 

Morris:       There  is  a  legend,  I  guess,  in  the  Bay  Area  that  it  is  an 

official  Stanford  rule  that  all  buildings  will  have  red  tile 
roofs. 

Charles:      That  isn't  correct,  no.   It  was  just  that  we  always  tried  to  do 
something  to  maintain  the  general  shape  and  reaction  that  you 
would  get  to  a  building  on  the  campus.   But  red  tile  was  almost 
prohibitively  expensive  at  that  time.  We  discovered  right  away 
that  we  weren't  going  to  be  able  to  get  much  of  our  red  tile. 
We  found  a  way  to  put  a  kind  of  red  colored  gravel  on  the  roofs 
which  gave  an  impression  of  red  on  it. 

Morris:       Were  there  any  architects  on  the  board  of  trustees,  by  chance? 

Charles:      No.   There  was  an  architect  who  was  associated  with  the  planning 
office,  but  he  was  one  of  those  people  who  spoke  in  great 
generalities  when  he  talked  about  planning.   He  talked  to  the 
trustees  about  how  you'd  see  this  theme  would  come  in  and  must 
be  followed.   The  trustees  were  not  interested  in  all  that 
romantic  kind  of  thing,  you  know.   I  kept  trying  to  get  him  down 
to  brass  tacks  on  what  he  would  say,  but  I  never  succeeded. 


211 


PACE  Campaigns  and  Other  Fund  Raising 


Morris:       Was  there  a  major  building  program  going  on  in  the  fifties  when 
you  were  first  on  the  committee? 

Charles:      Wally  one  day  said  to  me,  "Do  you  realize  we  have  spent"  (and  he'd 
say  how  much  it  was,  something  like  a  hundred  and  forty  million 
dollars  and  buildings)  "in  your — " 

Morris:       While  you  were  chairman. 

Charles:      While  I  was  chairman  of  the  committee.  He  said,  "You've  done  a 

good  job,  too."  We  were  in  a  big  job  of  fund  raising  for  buildings. 
We  were  spending  it  just  as  fast  as  we  could  get  it  in. 

Morris:       Is  that  what  I've  heard  referred  to  as  the  PACE  campaign? 

Charles:      Yes,  that's  exactly  what  it  was.   I've  forgotten  what  the  dates 
of  that  were. 

Morris:      When  I  talked  to  Mr.  Doyle,  he  mentioned  that  and  I  think  he  told 
me  it  was  1962. 

Charles:      Yes,  I  think  it  was  in  the  sixties. 

Morris:       Was  Pace  the  name  of  the  person  who  was  chairman  of  it? 

Charles:      No,  PACE  was  the — what  do  you  call  that  when  you  use  the  first 
initials  of  something? 

Morris:       Acronym. 

Charles:      That's  what  it  was.   I've  forgotten  what  the — Program  to 

something.   I'll  have  to  get  that  out  of  the  files  somewhere.* 
It  was  extremely  successful.   I  can't  tell  you  how  I  admired 
the  people  who  were  raising  the  money.   They  just  stayed  on  the 
job  and  had  a  marvelous  organization  that  brought  all  the 
alumni  in  from  all  over  the  country.  We  had  hordes  of  people 
working  for  the  university,  which  is  the  first  time  they'd  had 
such  a  highly  organized  campaign. 


Plan  of  Action  for  a  Challenging  Era,  this  five-year 
fund  raising  campaign  began  in  1965  and  reached  its  $100 
million  goal  in  three  and  a  half  years. 


212 


Charles : 


Morris : 

Charles ; 

Morris: 

Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles 
Morris : 
Charles 


Herman  Phleger  was  on  the  board  at  that  time  and  he  used  to  say 
to  me,  "You  know,  they're  going  to  talk  about  what  happened  in 
the  Charles  era.  They'll  say  that  building  was  built  in  the 
Charles  era.   I  don't  know  why  you  had  the  courage  to  take  a 
job  like  this." 

Herman  was  a  great  person  to  tease  you  in  a  kind  of  a  dry 
way.   I  always  maintained  my  independence.   I  didn't  get  shaken 
up  by  that  sort  of  thing.   I'd  gotten  very  used  to  Herman  on  the 
board.  He  made  some  excellent  suggestions.   One  was  our  university 
landleasing  program,  that  we  not  let  it  go  for  so  low  an  amount. 
He  said,  "That  land  is  increasing  in  value  all  the  time.  You've 
set  your  price  too  low." 

The  young  fellow  in  charge  of  the  staff  would  say,  "But  Mr. 
Phleger,  we  have  to  lease  it."  He  said,  "It  will  lease  at  a  higher 
price."  They  didn't  believe  him,  but  the  board  voted  that  he 
should  do  that  and  they  did.  And  that's  exactly  what  happened. 


Was  the 
board? 


landleasing  program  established  while  you  were  on  the 


Morris : 


Yes. 

How  did  that  come  about? 

We  needed  more  buildings.  We  felt  that  one  of  the  best  ways  that 
we  could  use  that  land  around  the  campus  proper  before  it  got 
condemned  by  somebody  for  school  use  or  something — that's  a 
hazard  you're  up  against  all  the  time — was  to  be  using  it  for  our 
own  purposes. 

This  is  the  land  right  along — ? 

Along  the  edge  of  Stanford,  along  the  periphery. 

Along  El  Camino? 

No.   It's  further  back  in  the  hills.   I  believe  there  are  four 
thousand  acres  in  the  campus  proper.  Then  we  considered  the 
outlying  area  available  for  this  leasing  program.   It  just  worked 
beautifully. 

The  leases  were  agreed  on  to  raise  the  money  to  start  the  building 


See  the  Regional  Oral  History  Office's  interview  with  Mr.  Phleger. 


213 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris : 

Charles : 
Morris : 

Charles : 

Morris : 
Charles; 


Morris : 


Charles : 


program?  Was  that  the  idea? 

Yes.  To  raise  money  for  the  buildings  on  campus,  you  see. 
to  improve  the  endowment  at  the  university. 


Also 


Was  that  something  that  President  Sterling  proposed  to  the  trustees? 

Yes.  Dr.  Sterling  would  be  the  one  to  propose  the  usage  of  the 
funds  raised  from  what  they  called  the  land  development  committee. 
My  committee  was  separate  from  the  committee  that  was  dealing 
with  the  outlying  lands.  My  responsibility  was  only  the  campus 
lands.   It  worked  very  well.  There  were  businessmen,  as  there 
should  have  been,  on  the  land  development  committee  who  knew  real 
estate  values  and  a  very  distinguished  real  estate  man  of  San 
Francisco,  Mr.  Cedric  Coldwell,  contributed  his  services  as 
adviser  to  land  development.  He  helped  us  analyze  and  take 
advantage  of  real  estate  procedures;  understand  them.  It  was 
an  invaluable  service.  He  was  with  Coldwell,  Coldwell,  and 
Banker,  it  was.  He  didn't  have  any  Stanford  connection. 

Hasn't  his  firm  been  involved  in  quite  a  lot  of  what  they  call 
industrial  park  development? 

Yes.  We  were  the  first,  I  believe. 

This  land  leasing  program — is  that  in  addition  to  the  Stanford 
Research  Institute? 

Oh  my,  yes.  That's  something  entirely  different.  The  land 
leasing  program  was  because  of  the  way  in  which  the  will  was 
written.  We  can't  sell  anything. 

Ever? 

No.   So  we  preserve  this  in  perpetuity,  in  a  way,  by  being  able 
to  lease  it.  It  will  return  to  the  university  at  the  conclusion, 
unless  the  leases  are  renewed,  which  they  all  have  been.  Time 
passes  so  rapidly,  you  know.   But  Mr.  Phleger  was  absolutely 
right  in  insisting  on  our  asking  that  the  value  of  those 
leaseholds  being  increased. 

Did  you  ever  use  a  professional  development  person,  fund  raiser, 
to  help  plan  some  of  these — ? 

Oh  my,  we  always  did.  They  had  an  excellent  committee  that  gave 
suggestions  and  a  plan  for  organizing  everybody.   It  was  really 
very  good.   I  didn't  take  an  active  part  in  that,  because  my 
responsibilities  were  elsewhere.   I  don't  feel  comfortable  about 


214 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Charles:      fund  raising. 
Morris:       Why  not? 

Charles:      I  don't  know.   I  never  have.  It's  a  terrible  thing  for  me— it's 
a  humiliation  to  me — I  probably  need  to  have  a  headshrinker 
figure  it  out.   I  think  it's  partly  because  I'm  conscious  of  the 
fact  that  I  don't  have  enough  money  to  come  back  with  something 
that  my  donors  want  to  raise  money  for. 

If  I  could  go  and  get  a  million  dollars  from  someone — 
You  feel  you  ought  to  match  it  yourself? 

Yes.  Perhaps  I  shouldn't  match  it,  but  I  should  be  able  to  make 
a  really  substantial  contribution.   But  you  see,  my  husband  has 
earned  everything  that  we  have.  Neither  of  us  had  any 
inheritance  that  amounts  to  a  thing.  Al  has  been  extremely 
successful,  but  his  senior  partner,  Mr.  Lillick,  who  started 
practicing  some  years  before,  had  been  able  to  become  quite 
wealthy  in  his  law  practice,  because  there  was  no  income  tax 
in  those  days.  What  a  difference! 

Morris:       Let's  go  back  to  your  building  and  grounds  committee,  for  a  minute. 
Who  served  with  you  on  it?  You  mentioned  David  Packard — 

Charles:      He  remained  on  the  committee.  We  had  about  half  a  dozen  members 
of  the  board.   Let  me  think  now  who  they  were.  I  think  my  friend 
Mr.  Herman  Phleger  was  on.  He  was  a  stormy  petrel,  so  it  was  hard 
to  take  seriously  some  of  the  things  he  proposed  that  were 
important  to  be  done.  He  liked  to  go  after  the  staff,  you  know. 
Why  was  that  oak  tree  out  in  a  certain  place  looking  so 
miserable?  Why  weren't  you  taking  better  care  of  the  oaks?  The 
staff  would  all  get  to  exploding  because  they'd  get  so  upset  about 
being  challenged.   They  were  all  doing  a  heroic  job.   The  work 
was  just  tremendous  then. 

Wally  Sterling  is  a  very  fine  fund  raiser  himself,  so  he 
raised  a  good  deal  of  the  money  in  that  campaign.  What  a 
remarkable  man!  When  I  became  ill  last  year,  he  wrote  me  one 
of  the  sweetest  notes  I've  ever  seen,  saying  that  he  doubted 
that  ever  in  the  history  of  universities,  a  president  of  a 
university  and  a  trustee  worked  together  in  such  an  amicable 
way,  when  I  was  doing  building  and  grounds,  which  was  nice. 

Morris:       Isn't  that  fine. 

Charles:      It  was  sweet  of  him.  We  did  have  an  awfully  good  time  working 

together.  Wally  had  excellent  ideas.  He  was  always  worried  about 


215 


Charles:      what  the  vistas  were  going  to  be  around  the  universities.  If  we 
put  that  building  there,  what's  that  going  to  do  to  the  outlook? 
It  was  very  sensible  and  good.  There  were  a  lot  of  amusing 
incidents  during  that  time. 

On  one  occasion  the  staff  called  me  and  wanted  me  to  come 
right  down.  They  needed  to  choose  the  color  on  a  building. 
I  suppose  they  were  arguing  about  it.  They  wanted  me  to  come 
down  and  decide.   I  said,  "Well,  I'll  get  there  as  fast  as  I 
can."  My  daughter,  Jean,  who  now  has  five  children,  was  just 
in  the  hospital  having  one.   I  had  the  other  children  with  me, 
trying  to  take  care  of  them.  Finally,  I  ended  up  by  taking  a 
couple  of  them  with  us,  as  Al  said  he'd  drive  me  down.   So  I 
met  the  people  who  were  waiting  for  me.  There  was  an  old  codger 
who  was  evidently  the  watchman  or  something,  who  stopped  us  as 
we  got  near  the  building.   I  said,  "I'm  Mrs.  Charles.   I'm  a 
trustee  and  I'm  supposed  to  come  down  here  and  help  them  select 
the  color  for  this  building."  He  looked  at  me,  and  at  three 
disheveled  children  in  the  car  with  me — "You're  a  trustee?!"  he 
asked.   I  said,  "Yes."  He  couldn't  believe  it.  He  shook  his 
head,  but  then  he  let  me  in.   I  loved  that.   [Laughter] 

Morris:       It  sounds  as  if  you  might  have  been  the  only  woman  working  with 
these  people  on  buildings  and  grounds. 

Charles:      I  think  so.  Occasionally  they  put  a  woman  on  the  committee,  but 
the  women  didn't  like  it  very  much.   I  guess  it  isn't  a 
naturally  feminine  interest. 

Morris:       The  other  women  who  came  on  the  committee  didn't  really  like  it? 

Charles:      Yes.   Before  we  leave  this  subject,  I  must  mention  the  very  high 
quality  of  staff  we  worked  with.  They  were  utterly  responsible 
about  the  university  and  didn't  really  need  all  these  trustee 
committees.  On  one  occasion  they  told  us  that  they  believed 
they  should  bury  the  telephone  wires  going  to  a  new  building.   I 
knew  the  board  would  take  this  badly.  The  expense  of  undergrounding 
the  wires  seemed  unnecessary.   But  in  this  case,  the  staff  explained 
the  wires  would  have  to  be  carried  across  Palm  Drive.  Palm  Drive 
is  the  entrance  road  to  the  campus.  I  knew  the  board  would  agree  to 
the  undergrounding  if  the  alternative  were  wires  crisscrossing 
Palm  Drive.  And  so  it  was. 

Morris:       Did  the  population  of  students  increase  tremendously  while  you 
were  a  trustee? 

Charles:      In  those  years,  yes.   I  think  so — the  sixties.  And  by  that 
time,  I  was  speaking  up  forcefully  at  the  board  of  trustees 
about  student  affairs.  Many  students  would  come  to  see  me. 


216 


Charles:      I  would  talk  to  them  and  listen  to  what  they  had  to  say. 
Morris:       They  would  come  up  here  to  San  Francisco? 

Charles:      No,  they'd  make  an  appointment  for  the  next  time  I  was  on  the 
campus.   Sometimes  they'd  come  up  here. 

Morris :       Did  you  have  an  office  down  there  at  the  university? 

Charles:  No,  but  I  could  always  get  a  place  where  I  could  see  anybody 
I  wanted  to  see.  I  was  always  meeting  with  somebody,  either 
over  in  the  planning  department — 

We  had  a  very  fine  planning  officer,  Harry  Sanders,  who 
retired  two  or  three  years  ago,  he  was  excellent.  When  he 
retired,  I  participated  in  a  book  of  letters  to  give  him.   I 
said  that  I  really  had  never  seen  him  unable  to  answer  a 
question  that  the  trustees  would  throw  at  him.   Some  of  the 
trustees  loved  to  ask.   If  they  asked  me,  I  couldn't  answer 
the  details  about  some  structural  material  and  why  we  were 
using  that  instead  of  something  else.  Harry  had  every  bit  of 
that  information  -at  his  fingertips.   It  made  for  a  much  smoother 
operation. 


Input  on  Construction 


Charles:      Really,  the  people  got  very  cantankerous  about  the  building  and 
grounds  program. 

Morris:       The  trustees  did? 

Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       Why  was  that? 

Charles:      They  just  wanted  it  to  look  right.  They  didn't  want  to  see  the 
money  spent  wrong.   But  I  think  because  of  my  being  a  woman — we 
were  still  old-fashioned  in  those  days — they  wouldn't  take  me  over 
the  coals.  They  would  the  young  staff.  When  I  stood  up  for 
them,  why  then  it  was  very  easily  handled. 

Morris:       Had  there  been  some  kind  of  master  plan  for  all  this  growth? 
Charles:      We  kept  adopting  master  plans. 
Morris:       Were  they  helpful,  do  you  think? 


217 


Charles 


Morris : 


Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Yes,  but  of  course,  it's  very  foolish  to  adhere  to  anything  so 
rigidly  that  you  can't  adapt  yourself  to  what  the  present  needs 
are. 

Sometimes  it's  said  of  college  campuses  that  they  just  kind  of 
grow  in  a  hodge-podge  way,  when  they  can  raise  money  for  buildings. 

We  wanted  to  keep  our  campus  in  some  kind  of  harmony,  even  though 
we  wouldn't  be  able  to  have  red  roofs  indefinitely.  We  would  at 
least  cause  the  buildings  to  have  a  similar  feeling.  The  first 
departure  from  that  was  Jack  Warnecke,  who  was  one  of  our  first 
architects. 

We  needed  a  new  post  office  and  a  book  store  building,  right 
in  the  heart  of  campus.  He  started  very  courageously  coming  in 
with  completely  modern  stuff  that — some  of  the  things  looked  like 
a  ship  in  full  sail.   I  kept  sending  things  back.   I  wouldn't 
even  bring  them  to  the  board.  Jack's  people  in  the  office 
were  finally  able  to  tone  down  their  desires  to  make  them  fit 
with  some  of  the  ways    the  campus  was  built.  They  did  it  very 
well.  They  really  settled  on  a  nice  tone.  We  built  a  very 
good-looking  post  office  and  a  very  good-looking  book  store. 

He  was  chosen  before  he  had  submitted  a  design  for  the  building? 

We  didn't  have  a  competitive  kind  of  design  program.   We  had  to 
explain  that  to  the  board  of  trustees.  You  can't  get  very  far 
with  that,  with  architects.  You  really  have  to  learn  all  you 
can  about  an  architect  and  then  try  to  let  him  have  a  hand  in 
deciding  what  you're  going  to  want,  rather  than  you  dictating 
to  him.   It  really  worked  very  well. 

What  I  started  to  say  earlier  was  that  I  thought  the  faculty 
should  be  included  in  these  meetings  with  the  architects,  and  in 
selecting  an  architect,  the  faculty  of  the  building  that  was  going 
to  be  built.  But  the  worst  problem  we  ever  had  was  when  we  built 
an  engineering  building.  The  faculty  of  engineering,  of  course, 
felt  they  knew  more  about  it  than  the  contractors  and  I  was 
constantly  soothing  the  architects  who  were  ultimately 
responsible.  They  would  come  in  and  say,  "I've  decided  I 
don't  want  that  room  that  long.  Just  shorten  that  a  little." 
It's  very  costly  to  the  financing  Of  a  building  to  make  what  they 
call  change  orders;  I  don't  know  how  they  charge  you  for  them. 
But  they  would  come  in.  Then  they  would  have  awful  arguments 
in  the  corridors  as  the  building  began  to  go  up.  The  engineers. 
They  just  knew  more  than  anybody  else  did  about  that  sort  of 
thing.   It  was  perfectly  natural.  Everybody  enjoyed  it. 

You  think  that  sometimes  people  enjoy  that  kind  of  a  controversy? 


218 


Charles:      Oh,  I  think  so.   Certainly. 

Morris:       It  makes  them  feel  a  part  of  what's  going  on? 

Charles:      I  think  so.   I  never  thought  there  were  any  threatening  aspects 
of  these  little  upsets  that  we'd  have  occasionally. 

Morris:       Did  some  of  the  faculty  or  trustees  have  particular  architects 
that  they  favored? 

Charles:      Yes.  We  just  told  them  we  were  very  anxious  to  get  the  names  of 
any  architects  they  wanted  to  recommend.   Then  we  would  take  the 
names  and  get  a  whole  lot  of  factual  material  on  them:  their 
backgrounds,  the  experience  of  other  places  where  they'd  worked, 
as  to  how  they'd  found  them  to  get  along  with,  and  that  sort  of 
thing. 

Morris:       Would  it  be  Mr.  Sanders  who  got  that  kind  of  information? 

Charles:      Yes,  he  and  his  staff.  He  had  a  big  staff.  Our  business  manager 
was  very  active  in  this  thing  because  it  was  he  who  got  these 
contracts  signed  so  they  were  within  estimates,  and  so  forth.  We 
had  an  awfully  good  man,  Alf  Brandin  was  a  very  able  and 
attractive  man. 

He's  the  business  manager? 

He  was  the  business  manager  of  that  part  of  university  work,  and, 
believe  me,  that's  hard  work. 

So  that  the  business  manager  and  the  planning  officer  would  be 
the  people  you  worked  with  most  closely  for  this  committee? 

Oh,  yes,  and  the  president,  as  one  of  his  special  interests. 
When  we  had  these  early  morning  meetings,  Alf  Brandin  and 
Harry  Sanders  and  Dr.  Sterling  would  be  there.   They  used  to 
love  to  tease  me.  One  day  they  told  me  that  we  were  going  to 
remodel  Encina,  which  was  an  old  dormitory.   They  wanted  me  to 
see  what  had  to  be  done.  They  said,  "We  can't  take  you  up  in  the 
elevator  inside;  you've  got  to  climb  the  iron  ladder  outside  to 
get  up  to  the  roof."  They  were  always  waiting  to  see  what  I  would 
do.  Those  were  the  days  before  slacks  were  worn.   I  did  what  I 
always  did,  did  what  they  asked  me  to,  without  endangering  life 
and  limb. 

Morris:       Did  you  climb  up  outside  of  the  building? 
Charles:      Yes. 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles : 


219 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Good  for  you! 

Certainly.   I  thought  if  it  was  part  of  my  job,  I  wasn't  going 
to  have  a  woman  disqualified  because  she  was  too  modest  to  do  it. 

Did  you  ever  have  a  feeling  that  people  were  asking  you  to  do 
things  that  they  wouldn't  ask  a  man  to  do,  just  to  see  whether  or 
not  you'd  do  it? 

Yes,  I  think  so.  We  had  an  awfully  nice  relationship  with  these 
young  men.  We  had  a  lovely  time  working  together.   I  was  always 
very  direct  to  them  and  told  them  anything  I  knew  about  what  was 
wrong  with  what  they  were  doing,  if  there  was  such  a  thing. 
We  kept  things  going  along  at  a  nice,  smooth  pace.  We  soon  got 
ourselves  out  of  the  doldrums  of  so  much  disagreement. 

What  had  happened  before  was  the  trustees  never  had  time 
to  think  over  what  they  wanted.  They'd  see  the  plans;  then  be 
asked  to  adopt  them  immediately.   So  I  made  a  judgment  that  my 
committee  would  never  do  that.   There  would  be  one  meeting  when 
plans  would  be  presented  to  the  board,  and  they  would  not  be 
acted  on  until  the  next  meeting.   I  tried  to  resolve  the  things 
that  I  saw  that  I  thought  caused  the  most  difficulty. 

» 

In  something  like  that,  would  you  talk  that  over  with  Dr. 
Sterling  to  say  this  is  what  I  think  is  happening  and  can  we 
try  just  presenting  the  information  at  one  meeting  and  then 
waiting  til  the  next  meeting — ? 

Oh,  yes,  I'd  tell  him.  He  was  the  most  agreeable  with  any  ideas 
I  had  that  I  thought  would  work.   I  didn't  ever  feel  I  had  to  ask 
his  permission. 

I  was  thinking  of  it,  I  guess,  just  in  the  technical  sense  of 
getting  it  on  the  agenda  and — 

Yes,  only  the  agenda's  done  differently.  Wally  didn't  do  the 
agenda.  A  staff  member  always  did  the  agenda.   But  it  would 
come  through  the  planning  office  for  any  buildings  that  were 
going  to  be  built  and  from  the  business  office,  when  we  wanted 
to  discuss  estimates  at  the  meeting.   I  never  set  myself  up  as 
a  financial  authority.   I  always  retreated  to  one  side  when  they 
were  going  to  discuss  whether  they  thought  the  prices  were  fair 
or  not.   I  knew  I  didn't  know  anything  about  that;  I  just  wasn't 
going  to  put  myself  in  the  position  of  pontificating  about  something 
I  didn't  know  anything  about. 

It  sounds  like  within  the  trustees  there  would  be  other  people, 
like  Herman  Phleger  for  instance,  who  were  knowledgeable  about 


220 


Morris: 
Charles ; 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles; 

Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles: 


real  estate  values  and  functions  and  that  sort  of  thing. 

Of  course,  lots  of  them.   Then  Mr.  Coldwell  would  always  be 
involved  in  these  things ,  too ,  and  would  help  us  with  his 
experience. 

He'd  sit  in  on  that  part  of  the  trustees'  meetings? 

No,  he  wouldn't  sit  in  on  it.  Well,  he  might  be  invited  to  sit 
in  when  we  were  discussing  it.  He  might  just  do  his  discussing 
with  Dr.  Sterling  and  the  business  manager  and  the  planning 
officer.  He  was  a  lovely  man,  and  we  tried  not  to  impose  on 
him. 

How  did  he  get  involved,  do  you  know? 

He  was  a  particular  friend  of  one  of  the  trustees  (I've  forgotten 
who)  and  had  said  that  he  would  like  very  much  to  be  of  assistance 
if  he  could.  He  was  of  tremendous  assistance. 


I  can  believe  it. 
based,  primarily. 


I  think  of  his  firm  as  being  San  Francisco 


They  are  based  in  San  Francisco,  but  they've  always  dealt  in 
real  estate  all  around  the  Bay  Area.  They  had  a  lot  of  valuable 
information  about  land  values  and  all  these  things. 

How  much  of  the  process  of  working  through  the  details  and  coming 
up  with  a  decision  could  be  done  in  the  buildings  and  grounds 
committee  itself? 

The  buildings  and  grounds  committee  would  make  a  recommendation 
to  the  full  board  which  then  the  board — all  committee  meetings 
were  open  to  anybody  who  wanted  to  come. 

They  were  held  in  a  sequence.  We  had  one  day  devoted  to  the 
board  of  trustees.  We  began  in  the  morning  at  eight  o'clock. 
The  committees  would  meet  and  make  their  recommendations.   If  it 
was  a  committee  in  which  a  lot  of  people  were  interested,  a  lot 
of  the  trustees  would  come. 

Did  you  find  that  a  lot  of  them  did  come  to  your  committee 
meetings? 

Oh  yes;  of  course,  they  were  very  much  interested  in  it.   Then  we 
would  get  a  vote  of  the  committee  to  recommend  that  this  plan  be 
followed  or  whatever  we  were  looking  at.  Then,  when  it  came  to 
the  board,  full  board,  I  would  be  called  on  to  report  for  the 
committee,  which  I  would  then  do,  saying  that  it  was  being 


221 


Charles:      recommended  by  the  committee  that  we  do  thus  and  so.  Then  the 
board  could  make  its  dissent  if  they  had  any.  We  got  along 
really  quite  smoothly.   I  can't  remember  any  very  serious 
problems. 

Morris:       Did  you  find  that  on  some  things,  the  full  board  would  go  back 
over  territory  that  you'd  already  spent  a  lot  of  time  on? 

Charles:      Oh,  of  course!   It  was  important  to  be  able  to  answer  all  their 
questions.   It  was  always  my  feeling  that  I  must  come  there 
prepared,  so  that  I  would  always  go  to  whatever  site  we  were 
considering,  so  that  I  could  explain  to  the  board  why  it  seemed 
like  the  right  site  and  what  I  thought  it  was  going  to  look  like, 
because  they  need  both  a  lay  opinion  and  a  professional 
opinion  on  that. 

Morris:       Did  your  committee  disagree  at  all?  Frequently?  With  the  staff? 

Charles:      Occasionally.   It  was  not  a  thing  that  couldn't  be  taken  care  of 
if  they  didn't  agree  with  Alf  Brandin's  estimate  of  who  ought 
to  get  the  contract.  But  they  knew  that  we  had  a  long  process 
for  awarding  a  contract  for  these  several  millions  of  dollars 
of  buildings  that  we  were  doing.  Unless  the  board  members  could 
offer  some  very  good  reason  why  it  should  be  somebody  else,  then 
we  would  continue  with  the  recommendation  of  staff.  The  staff 
wasn't  likely  to  be  in  somebody's  pocket  for  that  sort  of  thing. 

Morris:       Was  there,  then,  a  kind  of  rotation?  The  different  construction 
would  go  to  different  architects  and  different  contractors. 

Charles:      Yes,  indeed,  that's  what  we  tried  to  do.  We  tried  to  use  many 
different  architects.  We  realized  that  with  all  the  money  we 
were  raising  in  PACE,  we'd  be  spending  millions  of  dollars  on 
building,  and  we  didn't  feel  that  we  ought  to  confine  that  to 
a  single  architect.  We  had  very  good  luck  with  that  method. 
Sometimes  we  would  go  back  to  the  architect  who  had  built  some 
building  originally,  if  we  were  going  to  make  an  addition  in 
order  to  get  the  same  feeling. 


Nominating  Committee 

[  Interview  10:   24  January  1978] //// 


Morris:      I  thought  we  might  go  on  with  the  trustees'  nominating  committee 
and  how  you  happened  to  be  appointed  to  the  nominating  committee. 


222 


Charles ; 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles i 
Morris : 

Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 


Charles: 


It's  an  appointive  situation  where  the  president  of  the  board — 
this  was  all  in  the  days  before  women's  lib,  so  there  wasn't  any 
particular  pressure  on  him  to  put  a  woman  on.  After  all,  I  was 
a  duly  elected  trustee.   I  think  he  just  suggested  that  I,  or 
recommended  that  I  be  on — or  appointed  me,  I  should  say.   I 
shouldn't  say  recommended  because  that  was  his  job.   That  was 
the  most  important  committee  on  the  board. 

That's  my  impression. 

In  order  to  get  the  right  people  onto  the  board  of  trustees. 
Something  that  worries  them  all  to  death. 

Was  that  still  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel? 

Yes,  Lloyd  was  still  the  president  of  the  trustees. 

Who  else  served  with  you  when  you  went  on  the  nominating 
committee? 

Oh,  my  goodness  sakes!   I  think  Judge  Homer  Spence  had  been  the 
long-time  chairman  of  the  nominating  committee.  There  were  no 
rules  for  retirement  or  rules  for  the  cessation  of  anybody's 
service — you  didn't  serve  a  term  on  any  of  these  committees 
on  the  board;  you"  just  served  at  the  pleasure  of  the  president. 

Did  you  have  any  particular  ideas  yourself  as  to  what  kinds  of 
people  you  would  like  to  see  serve  on  the  board? 

Yes,  I  was  very  concerned  about  women,  that  the  board  not  always 
be  thinking  about  how  much  money  people  could  contribute  or 
bring  in,  which  is  a  popular  conception,  because  I  knew  that 
they  wouldn't  get  the  best  women  that  way.  Women  don't,  as  a 
rule,  have  control  of  that  much  money.  Oh,  there  are  some,  of 
course.   I  don't  mean  there  aren't  women  who  do,  but  by  and 
large,  they  don't.   It  would  be  better  to  take  them  for  their 
character  or  their  accomplishments  as  persons.   That  was  much 
harder  to  make  the  board  believe. 

How  did  you  do  in  convincing  them  that  there  should  be  more 
women  ? 


Not  very  well.  They  didn't  want  more  women.  Homer  Spence  said 
to  me,  "Now,  Caroline,  don't  you  ever  let  this  board  off  from 
having  two  women  on."  They  had  three,  because  Mae  Goodan  had  been 
appointed  earlier,  several  years  before.  Then  I  was  elected  in  the 
big  election  that  changed  the  number  of  the  board  of  trustees. 
We  had  an  alumni  election.  We  were  just  beginning  to  experiment 
with  an  alumni-appointed  group  of  trustees.  One  of  those  was  a 
woman. 


223 


Morris:  Do  you  remember  her  name? 

Charles:  Ruth  Lipman,  Mrs.  E.  C.  Lipman  from  Berkeley. 

Morris:  Was  she  a  younger  woman? 

Charles:  No,  she  was  older  than  1,  by  quite  a  bit. 

Morris:  Did  the  nominating  committee  meet  all  year  long? 

Charles:  Oh,  my,  yes  I  You  never  knew  when  people  were  going  to  resign  or 
leave  the  board  for  some  reason  or  other.  You  had  to  be  able  to 
act  on  it  very  quickly. 

It  was  very  hard  to  keep  that  number  of  women  up,  because 
the  men  on  the  board  had  the  conviction  that  only  men  in  the 
Los  Angeles,  for  instance,  area,  could  help  them;  not  women. 
And  yet ,  Mae  Goodan  had  been  a  tremendous  help  to  them. 

Morris:      You  said  it  was  hard  to  keep  the  number  up.  Was  there  a  fairly 
regular  resignation,  retirement  rate? 

Charles:     It  was  by  their  own  choice.  We  didn't  have  a  terminal  point.  Now 
it's  very  clear.   I  was  on  that  board  for  twenty  years.   I  must 
have  been  the  last  of  the  long-term  appointees.  Your  term  was 
usually  ten  years.  At  the  end  of  the  term,  you  were  probably 
re-elected.   It  was  quite  surprising  if  you  weren't.   I  think  you 
had  to  do  something  terrible  to  be  dropped. 

Morris:      So  that  one  of  the  criteria  for  nominating  people  would  be 

somebody  that  you  could  live  with  for  a  long  period  of  time? 

Charles:     Oh,  yes.  We  had  people  that  we  knew  and  they  were  very  anxious 
to  get  people  who  could  help  the  university.   It  was  about  the 
beginning  of  the  time  that  the  PACE  program  began;  so  then  it 
was  important. 

Morris:      I  gather  that  Morris  Doyle  and  Richard  Guggenhime  came  on  the 
board  after  you  did? 

Charles:     Yes. 

Morris:      Would  you  have  been  on  the  nominating  committee  that  selected 
them? 

Charles:     Probably.   I  would  have  been  enthusiastic  about  both  of  them, 
of  course.   I've  known  them  well  for  so  many  years. 


Morris: 


Had  Mr.  Guggenhime  been  a  student  at  Stanford  while  you  were? 


224 


Charles:     Yes,  he's  a  little  bit  younger,  about  two  years  younger  than  I. 
I  think  he  was  the  class  of  '29,  as  was  Morrie  Doyle.   I  was  the 
class  of  '27,  you  see. 

Morris:      Is  Mr.  Guggenhime  still  on  the  board? 
Charles:     Yes,  he  is.   They  did  continue,  yes. 

Morris:      Any  others  in  particular  that  you,. can  think  of  that  were  selected 
by  the  nominating  committee  when  you  were  on  it? 

Charles:     No.   I'm  sorry,  I  just  don't  remember. 

Morris:      Mr.  Guggenhime  you'd  known  at  the  Rosenberg  Foundation. 

Charles:     Not  only  there,  but  we  had  worked  together  for  years.  Dick 

always  had  a  favorite  story  about  me.  He  loved  to  tell  people 
about  how,  when  he  was  president  of  the  Community  Chest  and  I 
was  on  the  executive  committee,  he  said  once  he  came  in  to  tell 
the  executive  committee  about  a  problem  he  had.  Then  he  said,  I 
said  to  him,  "Now,  Dick,  kindly  don't  tell  us  how  to  solve  it. 
We  should  be  allowed  to  do  that  ourselves  and  make  some 
suggestions  before  you  come  in  with  your  solutions." 

He  always  came  that  way;  he  always  brought  in  a  problem 
and  gave  his  solution  immediately.   I  thought  that  wasn't  a  good 
way  to  work  with  people.  Dick  had  never  had  a  woman  tell  him 
what  to  do,  or  anybody  else,  I  guess.  He's  such  a  lovely 
fellow.  He  was  very  amused  by  it.  He  just  loved  to  tell  about 
me,  how  I  didn't  mind  taking  him  down  a  peg. 

Morris:      When  you  and  he  were  working  together  on  things,  did  he  change 
his  ways? 

Charles:     I  think  he  did,  if  I  remember  correctly.   I  can't  remember  what 
happened  after  that  in  the  Community  Chest,  but  I  remember  he 
and  I  have  always  gotten  along  well.   I've  never  felt  called 
upon  to  reprimand  him  for  what  he  was  doing,  I  don't  believe. 

Morris:      The  Community  Chest  and  Stanford  trustee  positions  take  quite  a 
lot  of  time.  How  did  Mr.  Guggenhime  manage  to — ? 

Charles:     He  was  in  Lloyd's  office,  which  was  unusual,  to  elect  and  have 
two  people  on  the  board  from  the  same  law  firm  or  whatever  it 
might  be.   In  any  case,  he  was  elected  to  the  board.  Lloyd  was 
very  ill  at  that  time  with  a  terminal  illness.  We  wanted  him 
to  know  that  we  were  going  to  continue  representation  of  someone 
he  was  very  eager  to  have  elected  to  the  board. 


Morris:      Mr.  Guggenhime  would  be  kind  of  Mr.  Dinkelspiel's  protege? 


225 


Charles:     I  think  that  in  the  office  he  may  well  have  been.  He  is  now  the 
senior  partner  in  that  law  office,  where  Lloyd  was  a  senior 
partner  for  years. 

But  you  know,  I  have  never  hesitated  to  try  to  make  people 
try  to  understand  my  position  on  something.   I  was  thinking  back 
to  my  days  at  home.   I  was  beginning  to  learn  something  about 
wisdom,  I  guess.  You  only  learn  from  what  you  see  people  do, 
or  hear  something  solved  that  way.  My  father  was  the  dearest 
man,  he  was  a  very  small,  short  man,  with  a  marvelous  sense  of 
humor.  We  children  adored  him.   If  he  saw  me  worrying  about 
something,  he'd  say,  "What's  the  matter,  Caroline,  they  got  the 
Indian  sign  on  you?"  I  loved  that  expression  because  it  conveyed 
so  much,  that  general  feeling  that  you  need  not  be  defeated  by 
things.  He  felt  that  when  it  was  an  anomalous  thing,  that  you 
should  rise  above,  move  ahead,  and  ignore  it.  But  at  least  he 
knew  it  existed,  which  was  what  made  him  such  a  comforting  parent. 
He  recognized  those  unspoken  things . 


Advocate  for  Students 


Morris:      Were  there  many  times  on  the  Stanford  board  when  you  felt  that  you 
might  be  in  a  situation — ? 

Charles:     Oh,  my,  yes.  With  the  students,  I  really  fought  a  battle,  a 

constant  ongoing  battle  about  them.   I  was  very  concerned  that  the 
board  take  time  to  listen  to  them  and  try  to  understand  something 
of  what  was  causing  all  these  upheavals. 

We  were  lucky  at  Stanford,  we  always  said,  because  we  had 
read  all  these  things  happening  at  UC,  and  our  students  were  still 
calm.   But  we  knew  it  would  eventually  come  over  here  because 
this  is  the  way  these  student  movements  are.  They  go  all  over  the 
country.  Then  the  board  was  amazed  at  some  of  the  university  rules 
and  regulations  that  we  heard  about — I  think  most  of  us  hadn't 
even  thought  about  existing.  They  existed  but — for  instance,  it  was 
always  considered  a  cause  for  reproach  for  the  students  to  have  a  public 
opinion  on  anything  that  the  university  itself  had  an  opinion  on 
contrary  to  them.  Yet  I  think  when  we  examined  that  sort  of 
provision  in  the  light  of  the  new  kinds  of  students  and  the  things 
we  knew  about  our  own  children,  we  knew  it  wouldn't  work.   It 
would  only  cause  more  upheavals  and  rebellion. 

Morris:      What  do  you  recall  as  the  beginnings  of  the  students  really 
speaking  out  at  Stanford? 

Charles:     Let  me  see  what  the  first  thing  was  that  happened.   I  Just  don't 
remember,  but  we  had  some  dramatic  moments  when  they  staged  a 


226 


Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 


refusal  to  let  anybody  go  in  and  out  of  certain  buildings  where 
they  thought  things  were  going  on  that  they  didn't  approve  of, 
such  as  research  on  the  war  effort,  or  anything  of  that  sort. 

They  objected  to  the  Stanford  Research  Institute? 

Yes,  somewhat,  but  that  isn't  where  that  would  be  going  on.  They 
were  talking  about  the  university  itself.  There  was  a  great  deal 
of  research  for  the  government  going  on  in  scientific  departments. 

They  would  picket  outside  of  the  buildings. 

They  would  picket  those  buildings,  which  was  new  to  us,  the 
picketing,  I  mean.   It  hadn't  been  done  before.   They  would 
refuse  to  let  people  in  and  out  of  those  buildings.  Then  we  had 
a  young  professor  who  was  encouraging  them. 

That  was  Franklin? 

Franklin,  whose  appointment  we  discontinued  finally,  with  the 
support  of  the  faculty  too,  which  was  essential,  of  course, 
because  you  can't  just  tell  a  professor  to  leave  or  refuse  to 
renew  his  contract  nowadays  without  having  consulted  the  body 
of  your  professors.  Dear  old  Mrs.  Stanford  fired  a  professor 
when  he — let  me  think  what  his  error  was — he  was  out  making 
critical  speeches  to  other  communities  that  Mrs.  Stanford 
thought  were  a  disgrace.   But  of  course,  that  was  probably 
nothing  that  we  would  think  of  or  even  look  twice  at  today. 


I  can  imagine, 
teach? 


What  was  Professor  Franklin's  field?  What  did  he 


I  think  he  was  in  the  English  department;  I  know  he  was.  But  he 
did  actually  lead  these  insurrections.  You'd  see  him  over  on  the 
steps  of  the  buildings  and  he  said  to  the  students,  "Now,  keep 
them  out."  And  just  encouraging  them,  which  was  unheard-of  for 
a  professor  to  do,  but  he  thought  it  was  his  right  to  do  that. 
He  is  now  working  for  another  university  in  the  East;  I've 
forgotten  which  one  it  is. 

Was  it  tenure  that  was  denied  to  him? 

No,  he  was  denied  a  renewal  of  his  contract.  Yes,  of  course,  he 
was  about  to  get  tenure  and  we  couldn't  afford  to  let  that 
happen,  we  felt. 

He  hadn't  been  at  Stanford  very  long,  is  that  right? 

No,  not  very  long.   I've  forgotten  how  many  years  you  have  to  be 
there  in  order  to  have  tenure. 


227 


Morris:      How  did  the  student  government  function  in  these  student  upheavals? 

Charles:     The  student  government  was  part  of  them,  of  course,  and  they 

were  carrying  them  on.  We  had  some  very  eloquent  students  who 
were  presidents  of  the  student  body  at  that  time. 

Morris:      I  think  of  David  Harris.  Did  you  have  any  contact  with  him? 

Charles:     Yes,  but  not  very  much.  He  wasn't  one  of  the  most  effective. 
He  was  famous  because  he  was  married  to  Joan  Baez.   He  was  not 
much  of  a  force  on  the  campus,  I  don't  think.  One  of  the  first 
of  the  student  body  presidents — well,  you  know,  the  students  had 
such  endearing  habits,  endearing  to  me,  in  those  days.  They 
loved  to  dress  up,  and  I  loved  the  way  they  dressed  up.  For 
instance,  Denis  Hayes,  when  he  was  president  of  the  student 
body,  comes  to  mind.  He'd  get  himself  all  dressed  in  white  like 
a  Southern  colonel,  in  clothes  from  some  secondhand  store.  They 
really  were  marvelous,  the  way  they  did  those  things.   Some  of 
those  uniforms  they  got  into  must  have  come  from  the  junk  stores 
around  there. 

Morris:      In  earlier  student  generations,  people  cared  considerably  about 
being  up  to  date  in  their  fashions.  What  do  you  suppose  brought 
on  the  thrift  shop  kind  of — ? 

Charles:     It  wasn't  the  thrift  shop.  They  weren't  thinking  of  the  thrift 
end  of  it.  They  were  just  thinking  of  looking  unusual.  That's 
really  what  they  wanted  to  do.  They  were  really  seeking  ways  to 
annoy.  They  realized  that  all  this  business  of  the  way  they 
dressed — that  sort  of  hippie  style — was  not  at  all  in  favor  with 
the  older  people.  They  used  to  try  to  do  things  that — they  had 
a  great  intuitive  sense  of  what  to  do  to  annoy. 

Morris:      Your  feeling  was  that  it  was  deliberate? 

Charles:     I  think  that  a  lot  of  the  things  they  did  were  just — after  all, 
we  weren't  quite  smart  enough  to  counter  by  not  paying  any 
attention  to  it. 

Morris:      In  hindsight,  does  it  seem  that  to  ignore  that  kind  of  behavior 
would  have  made  it  go  away? 

Charles:     No,  I  don't  think  it  would  make  it  go  away.   It  would  have  saved 
our  nerves  somewhat.   I  think  there  was  no  use  of  letting  the 
different  aspects  of  it  make  you  get  unduly  excited. 

Morris:      Did  some  of  the  trustees  get  unduly  excited? 

Charles:     Oh,  very  much!  They  got  very  much  distressed  by  it.   It  was 


228 


Charles:     their  university  and  the  idea  of  having  these  people  looking  like 
tramps  wandering  all  over  it,  they  couldn't  quite  accept  that. 

Morris:      How  did  they  feel  about  the  substance  of  the  student  protest? 
For  instance,  that  the  university  shouldn't  engage  in  war 
research. 

Charles:     We  felt,  everybody  felt,  that  we  were  in  a  war.   It  was  important 
that  everybody  be  sensitive  to  the  war  effort,  which  is  rather  an 
old-fashioned  point  of  view,  I  guess.   If  you're  going  to  be 
responsible  for  a  whole  university,  you  would  feel  that  way.   That 
was  just  the  beginning  of  the  disillusionment  with  Vietnam,  you 
know.   It  hadn't  really  come  yet. 

Morris:      In  addition  to  wearing  peculiar  clothes,  was  Stanford  bothered  with 
drug  use  by  students? 

Charles:     That  wasn't  part  of  the  thing  that  was  troubling  us  so  much.  We 
were  trying  to  take  care  of  that  through  our  medical  departments. 

Morris:      How  about  changes  in — you  mentioned  rules  and  regulations — 

changes  in  the  housing  rules  and  things  like  that  as  to  men  and 
women  in  the  same  dormitories? 

Charles:     I  think  that  came  before.   It  wasn't  related  to  that  at  all.  We 
had  already  accepted  the  proposal  of  our  student  supervisors,  the 
dean  of  men  who  felt  that  it  was  important  for  us  to  move  to  that . 
The  board  was  reluctant  about  it,  but  did.  They  were  looking  to 
see  what  the  women  on  the  board  would  do  about  that — and  I  just 
have  always  felt  that  you  just  can't  buck  the  times  very  far. 
You've  got  to  go  along  with  it  as  best  you  can  and  make  it  as 
difficult  as  possible  for  the  students  to  do  themselves  any  harm. 

Morris:      Make  it  difficult  for  the  students  to  do  themselves  harm. 

Charles:     Yes. 

Morris:      That's  a  very  interesting  way  to  put  it. 

Charles:     We  wouldn't  want  to  make  concessions  that  would  end  up  by  everybody 
being  worse  off  than  they  were  before.   So  we  tried  very  hard,  I 
think,  to  be  sensible  about  what  we  did. 

Morris:      In  terms  of  the  war  protests,  was  there  any  sense  in  which  the 
students  would  be  doing  themselves  harm  in  those  kinds  of 
protests? 

Charles:     There  wasn't  violence  yet,  real  violence,  I  don't  believe.  No, 
we  weren't  going  to  support  the  movement  against  the  war.  You 
know,  everybody  is  really  very  conventional  when  things  like  that 


229 


Charles:     happen,  because  they  feel  their  sense  of  loyalty  to  their  country 
very  strongly.  When  you're  older,  you've  given  up  fighting  out 
those  things;  you  just  accept  the  stance  that  the  proprieties 
demand  certain  things  of  you.  That  is,  people  like  us  do.  We're 
all  part  of  the  establishment,  so  to  speak.  But  you  have  other 
people  like  Henry  Sloane  Coffin  in  the  East  and  other  people  taking 
an  active  part,  but  that  was  not  the  body  of  the  university 
doing  it.   It  was  really  one  person. 


Attitudes  of  Faculty  and  Alumni 


Morris:      Aside  from  Franklin,  was  there  a  sense  that  there  were  the  same 
kinds  of  differences  of  opinion  within  the  faculty? 

Charles:     Oh  yes,  we  all  realized  there  were  bound  to  be.   Faculty  has 

always  been  much  more  liberal  than  the  board  could  be  or  would 
be. 

Morris:      Does  that  make  it  difficult  for  faculty  and  trustees  to  function? 

Charles:     No.  We  all  recognize  the  reasons  for  it.  There  was  no  feeling 

of  real  anger  at  each  other,  I  don't  believe.  There  may  have  been 
some,  but  it  wasn't  evident.  We  were  all  the  kind  of  people  who 
would  get  along  with  each  other,  regardless. 

Morris:      That's  interesting  that  in  one  institution,  you  have  a  conservative 
group  of  trustees  and  then  a  faculty  that  is  teaching — 

Charles:     They're  always  more  liberal  because  they're  working  in  a  world  of 
theory,  so  to  speak,  with  new  ideas  coming  all  the  time,  which  is 
not  what  troubles  the  board  of  trustees  very  much.  We  always 
had  one  or  two  trustees  who  were  more  liberal  than  the  body  of 
the  board.   In  fact,  I  well  remember  the  time  we  elected  a 
Democrat  to  the  board.  That  was  quite  an  astonishing  thing  to 
do  on  the  board.   Judge  Ben  Duniway  was  the  first  Democrat 
we  had  ever  had  on  the  board,  we  said.  Ben  knew  that,  too. 
We  used  to  tease  him  about  it. 

Morris:      Was  the  fact  that  he  was  a  Democrat  a  thing  that  the  trustees 
had  to  work  through? 

Charles:     The  trustees  had  to  think  about,  yes.  Because  we  just  hadn't 
had  any  Democrats  on  there  and  they  were  considered  far  more 
liberal  than  the  Republicans  in  those  days.  Things  have  changed 
a  lot,  1  think. 


230 


Morris:      I  guess  what  I'm  driving  at  is,  if  the  trustees  have  the  final 

responsibility,  how  is  it  that  they  allow  universities  to  continue 
to  have  liberal  thinkers  on  the  faculties? 

Charles:     Oh,  of  course!   I  don't  think  there  are  any  other  kind.   There  are 
a  few  ultra-conservative  professors  across  the  country.  We  have 
tried  to  get  some  to  come  to  Stanford,  but  of  course,  they  were 
all  much  in  demand  for  the  same  reasons  all  over  the  country,  I 
think. 

Morris:      Because  they  attracted  students? 

Charles:     No,  because  they  attracted  the  good  will  of  the  trustees  and  of 
the  alumni. 

Morris:      Oh,  I  see.  The  alumni  are  more  likely  to  want  new  and  startling 
different  things  going  on? 

Charles:     No,  the  alumni  want  conservatism.  The  kind  of  protests  we  got 
from  our  alumni  were  on  the  basis  of  too  much  liberality  going 
on,  and  that  sort  of  thing,  changes  since  they  went  to  school. 
But  we  had  protected  the  faculty  on  that  score  for  many,  many 
years.  That's  always  been  necessary,  I  think.  The  relationship 
of  town  and  gown,  so  to  speak,  is  kind  of  a  delicate  one. 

Morris:      In  town,  you  include  the  alumni  constituency? 

Charles:     Yes,  indeed,  as  well  as  the  board  of  trustees,  too.  We  were 
the  products  of  a  community  having  been  out  of  college  a  long 
time. 

Morris:      If  the  alumni  and  trustees  tend  to  conservatism,  why  are  they 
willing  to  protect  the  liberal  element? 

Charles:     Because  I  think  that  any  university  that  has  a  president,  the 
president  is  responsible  to  the  faculty  too,  you  see.  The 
president  of  the  university,  Wally  Sterling,  was  always  very 
protective  of  his  faculty.  We  realized  it  was  necessary.   I 
don't  think  you  have  to  be  very  smart  to  realize  that  it  was 
important  that  we  not  jeopardize  the  quality  of  our  education 
by  simply  throwing  everybody  out  and  getting  nothing  but 
conservatives  on  the  faculty,  which  would  have  been  hard  to 
do. 

Morris:  I  imagine  it  would  in  a  group  of  professors.  That  makes  me 
think  of  the  University  of  California  in  the  early  fifties, 
when  they  had  that  long  uproar  with  their  faculty  about  the 
loyalty  oath. 


231 


Charles:     Right.  The  faculty  took  a  very  courageous  stand  at  UC.  Monroe 
Deutsch  was  the  provost.  He  was  a  very  unusual  man.  He  never 
veered  from  his  stand  of  support  for  the  faculty. 

Morris:      Deutsch  came  out  of  retirement  to  speak  for  the  faculty  on  the 
loyalty  oath  issue.  Robert  Sproul  was  then  the  president. 

Charles:     That's  right. 

Morris:      Eventually,  they  did  fire  a  number  of  faculty.   I  wondered  if 
Stanford,  during  those  same  McCarthy  years,  had  any  similar 
pressures  or  problems? 

Charles:     No,  I  don't  think  so.   I  don't  remember  them,  because  that  was 
before  I  was  on  the  board. 

Morris:      Did  Dr.  Sterling  retire  during  the  student  uprisings? 

Charles:     Yes,  he  retired  a  little  later  than  that.  He  had  been  president 
for  many  years.   It  was  twenty  years,  I  think,  that  he'd  served. 
I've  forgotten  now  exactly  what  his  tenure  was,  but  he  was 
exactly  my  age — Wally  and  I  had  been  in  the  same  class,  he  at 
the  University  of  Toronto,  he  and  his  wife — the  class  of  1927. 
I  was  that  class  at  Stanford.  When  I  went  to  a  reunion,  I 
proposed  that  our  class  elect  Wally  and  Anne  as  honorary 
members  of  our  class,  which  they  were  glad  to  do.  There  wasn't 
any  problem  about  that. 

But  Wally  was  not  in  very  good  health  at  that  time;  he 
needed  to  restore  himself,  which  was  almost  impossible  to  do 
while  he  was  in  office.  The  students  would  come  to  his  house  and 
generally  raise  an  uproar.   It  was  very  hard  on  the  people  who  were 
on  the  campus.  After  all,  we  could  go  home  to  wherever  our  homes 
were — the  trustees  could.  Occasionally  the  students  would  picket 
the  board  of  trustees.   I  remember  Dick  Guggenhime  worrying 
about  me  getting  into  the  building  where  we  were  meeting  because 
the  students  were  all  lined  up  out  there.  They'd  make  catcalls 
and  all  kinds  of  comments. 

Morris:      This  was  when  you  were  meeting  in  San  Francisco? 

Charles:     No,  down  there;  then  they  began  coming  to  the  building  up 
here.   I  think  it  was  about  then  that  we  decided  to  try  to 
hold  more  and  more  meetings  on  campus.  There  was  no  need  of 
meeting  so  far  away.  But  it  was  a  good  thing  for  us.  We 
needed  to  meet  somewhere  where  we  could  actually  deliberate 
things. 


232 


Student  Challenges  and  Participation 


Morris:      Did  you  ever  send  a  few  of  the  trustees  to  talk  with  students  or 
have  a  few  of  the  students  in  to  talk  with  them? 

Charles:     We  had  the  president  of  the  student  body  come  in  and  talk  to  us 

a  couple  of  times.  They'd  be  young  people  prepared  very  carefully 
for  that. 

Morris:      Did  they? 

Charles:     I  wouldn't  say  that  they  were  very  persuasive  because  they 

really  forgot  what  they  were  up  against.   They  were  so  emotional. 
You  can't  do  a  good  job  when  you're  very  emotional  about  things. 
You  really  need  to  begin  to  get  your  intelligence  to  take  over  and 
try  to  imagine  what  the  people  you're  addressing,  what  concerns 
they  have.   That  was  hard  for  the  students  to  do,  of  course. 

Morris:      You  said  that  on  some  topics,  you  would  find  a  way  to  meet  with 
the  students. 

Charles:     I  would  occasionally — I  was  always  available  to  the  students. 

This  worried  some  of  the  men  on  the  board.   But  I  remembered  my 
father's  remark  about  the  Indian  sign,  and  I  decided  I  wasn't 
going  to  let  those  men  on  the  board  have  the  Indian  sign  on  me, 
as  to  what  _I_  thought  I  ought  to  do.   I  was  going  to  have  to  do 
what  I  thought  I  should.  At  that  time,  a  couple  of  students 
would  come  up  to  see  me  up  here  or  would  meet  me  someplace  on 
the  campus.   There  was  nothing  clandestine  about  it. 

Morris:      I  understand. 

Charles:     I  was  not  trying  to  keep  it  quiet.   I  had  talked  to  them  and  knew 
what  they  thought.   In  fact,  it  became  something  the  board  was 
very  anxious  to  know  about:  what  I  thought  the  students'  reaction 
to  things  would  be.  They  knew  that  I  was  in  communication  with 
them. 

Morris:      Did  you  find  it  easier  to  talk  with  and  come  to  some  understanding 
with  a  smaller  group  than  in  front  of  a  whole  mass  meeting  of 
students? 

Charles:     No,  I  don't  think  you  ever  arrived  at  an  understanding.   It  was 
really  more  of  exposing  yourself  to  being  talked  at.   [Laughter] 


Morris: 


Yes,  that  gives  a  good  picture  of  it. 


233 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles: 


Those  were  not  pleasant  meetings  to  go  to,  when  you  went  to  a 
meeting  of  students.   I  always  accepted,  when  I  was  asked  to  do 
that.  The  men  on  the  board  did  too,  but  no  one  was  happy  about 
that,  because  you  didn't  know  what  the  students  were  going  to  do. 
They  were  going  to  ask  you  very  unfair  questions. 

About  other  aspects  of  governance  of  the  university? 

No,  about  your  own  personal  life — it  was  very  hard  on  the  men. 
Why  did  the  trustees  have  a  partner  who  thought  thus-and-so? 
They  would  have  boned  up  on  whatever  the  business  of  the 
corporation  was  that  the  men — or  what  past  positions  might 
have  been.   They  were  completely  indiscriminate  about  what  they 
would  talk  to  you  about  and  many  things  were  not  really  suitable. 
You  were  not  there  to  be  defamed  or — 

Personally  attacked,  yes. 

Yes.  But  they  didn't  feel  any  inhibitions  about  that.  None  of  us 
would  have  done  that  to  them.  Some  of  my  friends  among  the  men 
on  the  board  were  very  much  amused  by  the  fact  that  a  student 
spit  at  me  once.  It  didn't  bother  me.  The  reason  it  amused 
them  was  that  he  was  a  boy  whose  parents  had  asked  my  help  to 
get  him  into  Stanford,  which  I  always  declined  to  do  because  I 
don't  think  it's  good  practice  for  a  trustee  to  do  that  sort  of 
thing. 

I  always  declined  whenever  I  was  asked  to  be  of  special 
help  to  any  family  or  student  getting  in.   They  had  to  make  their 
own  way  into  the  university.   I  would  always  let  the  university 
know  I  was  especially  interested  in  so-and-so,  but  I  wouldn't 
go  into  a  recommendation,  because  I  didn't  know  enough  about 
the  student.   It's  true  that  when  you're  asked  to  recommend  a 
student,  it  was  usually  by  the  parents.  You  didn't  really  know 
anything  about  the  student. 

Right.   That  gets  to  be  kind  of  difficult. 

It's  very  difficult  for  everybody.   I  really  had  too  much  respect 
for  our  admissions  department  to  try  to  interfere  with  their 
operations. 

Were  most  of  the  student  disturbances  that  came  to  the  trustees 
related  to  questions  of  the  Vietnam  War  or  did  you  also  get 
involved  in  the  minority — ? 


They  picked  up  any  issues  they  could  find, 
the  war  was  always  the  issue  at  that  time. 


I,  myself,  thought 


234 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles: 


What  about  minority  and  poorer  students? 
that  the  trustees  took  up  at  all? 


Was  that  a  question 


Morris : 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles : 


I  didn't  think  so.  I  didn't  think  we  were  forced  to  that  at  all. 
I  thought  that  it  was  more  governmental  policy  that  the  students 
wanted  to  try  to  influence  by  making  things  difficult  for  us. 

How  about  Stanford  and  minority  enrollment  and  looking  for  poor 
but  deserving  students? 

I  think  they  have  always  tried  to  do  that  and  have  tried  to  have 
plenty  of  scholarships  available.   It  was  much,  much  later  that 
that  became  an  issue  that  they  were  trying  to  deal  with  when,  for 
instance,  graduate  schools  finally  went  into  an  effort  to  let 
perhaps  ill-prepared  students  in  if  they  could  be  tutored  to 
make  it  possible  for  them  to  come.  That  was  done  in  the  medical 
school,  the  law  school,  and —  Each  graduate  school  operates  its 
own  admission  department. 

Business  school? 

Business — I  think  so.   I  would  just  have  to  be  not  too  detailed 
about  that  because  I  don't  really  remember. 

It  doesn't  sound  as  if  the  trustees  were  very  much  involved  in 
that  aspect. 

We  always  knew  about  all  those  things,  but  we  were  not  pressing 
anything.  We  could  have  objected — I  think  we  had  some  ultra- 
conservative  people  on  the  board  who  objected  to  these  kinds  of 
concessions.  They  were  very  consistent,  I'll  say.  Their 
prejudices  were  what  you'd  expect  from  ultra-conservative 
people  and  the  board  was  never  greatly  swayed  by  them. 

Later  the  trustees  did  make  some  changes  in  terms  of  deciding 
to  take  a  look  at  the  social  implications  of  their  investments. 

That  would  be  much  later.   That  whole  investment  movement  was — 
I've  been  reading  about  it.   It  wasn't  an  issue  with  us,  I  don't 
believe.   The  students  hadn't  quite  gotten  into  everything  we 
did.   It  came  as  a  rude  shock  to  the  board  to  have  the  students 
decide  to  take  a  look  at  our  investments.   That,  we  would  think, 
was  certainly  uncalled-for  on  the  part  of  a  kid,  as  we  would 
think  of  it. 

Then  we  started  trying  to  put  a  student  on  each  of  our 
trustee  committees. 


Morris : 


How  did  that  turn  out? 


235 


Charles : 
Morris: 

Charles ; 


Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


It  worked  very  well.  They  were  very  good. 

Were  they  able  to  do  the  homework  and  come  to  the  meetings  and 
keep  up  with  their  studies? 

Yes.  Oh,  there  wasn't  that  much  to  do,  you  know.  After  all, 
the  preparation  for  trustees  is  extensive  by  the  staff.   It  isn't 
that  we're  expected  to  dig  out  everything  we  need  to  know.  We 
tell  the  staff  what  we  need  and  they  produce  the  material  we 
want  for  deliberation.  That's  the  way  it  worked. 


Did  the  students  speak  up  in  these  committee  meetings? 


You 


Oh  my,  yes!  But  they  didn't  always  want  everything  they  got. 
would  try  to  make  these  concessions  to  them  and  then  discover 
that  sometimes  they  just  wouldn't  come.  They  didn't  always  attend 
the  meetings,  not  because  they  were  hard  pressed  for  time  to  do  it, 
but  because  they  just  lost  interest  in  it. 

They  finally  decided  there  were  only  one  or  two  committees 
that  were  powerful  enough  to  be  of  any  interest  to  them.  They 
didn't  want  to  get  on  committees  they  thought  were  not  right  in 
the  heart  of  everything.   Of  course,  they  wanted  to  be  on  the 
investment  and  finance  committee. 

How  about  nominating? 

And  nominating.   I  think  we  always  tried  to  have  the  students 
working  with  us,  as  we  did,  faculty.  We  added  both  professors 
and  students  to  all  committees. 


Morris: 


The  faculty  had  not  also  been  participating  in  the  trustee 
committee  work? 


Charles; 


No ,  no . 


Selecting  a  President 


Morris:       The  other  thing  that  I've  been  told  is  most  important  in 
trustees'  work  is  selecting  presidents. 

Charles:      That's  very  difficult.  You'd  have  to  have  second  sight,  which 
you  don't  have,  so  you  have  to  do  the  best  you  can. 

Morris:      Why  does  it  take  second  sight? 


236 


Charles:      You  want  to  know  how  they're  going  to  act  under  pressure,  which 
is  what  we  had  plenty  of  in  those  days,  especially  when  Dr. 
Sterling  retired.  We  had  a  very  difficult  time  finding  a  person 
to  come  in.  We  had  some  acting  presidents  who  did  well. 

Morris:       People  didn't  want  to  come  into  a  situation  that  was  unsettled? 

Charles:      Oh  yes,  they  wanted  to  come  but  we  didn't  want  people  there  whom 
we  felt  couldn't  deal  with  the  situation.  We  selected  one 
candidate  who  was  in  there  only  a  few  months  —  not  very  long. 
He  was  so  anxious  to  show  his  liberality  that  he  spent  a  great 
deal  of  time  bending  over  backwards  with  the  students,  which 
isn't  necessary,  you  know.  With  the  students,  you  need  to  hold 
up  your  end  of  the  discussion  and  try  to  make  them  understand 
why  your  point  of  view  is  as  it  is.  You  can't  just  give  up 
everything  and  say,  "Yes,  you're  right.   I'll  do  what  you  want." 
They  haven't  the  experience  to  be  able  to  run  the  university. 
I  don't  think  he  was  in  there  more  than  —  I  don't  know  whether 
he  was  in  there  a  year  or  not.  We'd  have  to  look  at  the 
historical  facts.   But  it  was  a  very  short  time.  He  was  in  science 
on  the  campus,  and  very  able. 

Morris:       Was  the  decision  of  the  trustees  that  they  wanted  somebody 
already  at  Stanford  rather  than  do  a  national  search? 

Charles:      No,  no,  not  at  all.   It  wasn't.  He  applied  for  it  and  I  think 
the  board  agreed.  Then  when  he  left,  these  two  young  men,  Dr. 
Lyman  and  another  man  from  the  law  school  came  together.   They 
were  on  the  faculty  and  offered  their  services  to  assist  in  any 
way  they  could.   Then  Dick  became  an  active  candidate  for  the 
presidency,  and  he  has  been  a  very  successful  president.  He  and 
his  wife.   Jing  Lyman  is  an  exceptional  young  woman.   It's  very 
important  to  the  president  of  the  university  to  have  a  wife  who 
can  deal  with  the  problems  she  has  to  deal  with.  Anne  Sterling 
was  an  exceptional  wife  of  a  president.   That's  the  only  reason 
why  I  could  see  that  a  woman  might  not  be  able  to  do  the  job. 
She  wouldn't  have  a  wife  to  carry  on  those  responsibilities. 
They're  enormous  for  a  president's  wife.  All  the  receptions 
and  heaven  knows  what,  dinners  and  everything  else,  lunches. 


Charles:      There  was  a  selection  committee  — 

Morris  :       They  didn1  t  function  as  a  committee  of  the  whole? 

Charles:  Oh  well,  it  did  in  the  sense  that  everything  was  brought  back 
to  the  full  board  with  the  possible  candidates,  and  we  knew  a 
great  deal  about  them.  And  actually,  they  were  brought  in  to 
visit  with  the  trustees. 


237 


Morris:       So  they  did  do  a  national  search? 

Charles:      Yes,  indeed  they  did.  Before  we  offered  the  position  to  Dick 
Lyman,  they'd  had  a  very  thorough  search  of  the  country. 

Morris :       Do  you  remember  how  the  discussions  went  that  it  was  decided 
better  to  stay  with  somebody  who  was  on  the  campus? 

Charles:      No,  no.   That  wasn't  the  basis  of  the  decision  at  all.  We 

wanted  to  get  the  best  possible  president,  of  course,  and  we 
needed  someone  who  was  very  good  in  his  own  field.   Dick  is 
an  historian. 

Morris:       So  was  Dr.  Sterling. 

Charles:      And  Dr.  Sterling  was,  too.   It's  a  valuable  academic  specialty 
to  have  in  a  president.   I  remember  hearing  Dick's  description 
of  a  student  problem,  and  he  didn't  put  it  in  such  a  way  that 
you  would  think  it  was  right  on  top  of  you.  You  would  think 
it  was  something  being  evaluated  in  a  historical  sense.   I  was 
very  admiring  of  that  sense  of  perspective  that  he  was  able  to 
give  to  the  critical  things  we  were  trying  to  deal  with. 

Morris:       In  deciding  on  a  president,  are  their  ideals  about  the  financial 

side  of  a  university  and  sources  of  financial  support  an  important 
consideration? 


Charles:      Yes.  What  we  need  to  know  is  their  history  in  that  regard, 
whether  they've  ever  participated  successfully,  and  then,  of 
course,  we  want  to  know  that  they'd  be  willing  to.  Wally 
Sterling  was  an  exceptionally  fine  fund  raiser  because  he 
inspired  so  much  confidence  in  the  people  whom  he  interviewed, 
and  well-deserved,  too.  Dick  has  done  very  well  in  that  regard, 
too. 

Morris:       Is  it  more  than  the  ceremonial  kinds  of  receptions  and  things 
that  a  president's  wife  has  to  be  responsible  for? 

Charles:      Well,  it's  more  than  that,  yes,  because  there 're  things  she 

does  on  her  own,  such  as  entertaining  the  women  on  the  faculty. 
I  remember  once  coming  by  the  president's  house  (I  had  to  leave 
some  material  for  Dr.  Sterling)  and  I  heard  piano  notes  coming 
out  of  the  house.   So  I  went  very  carefully  up  to  the  front  door 
and  opened  it  a  little  bit,  and  there  was  Anne,  sitting  there 
on  a  stiff  chair,  you  know,  listening  to  a  recital  of  some 
faculty  wives,  which  must  have  been  the  last  thing  in  the  world 
she  wanted  to  be  doing  at  the  end  of  a  hard  day.   I  think  they 
had  all  had  dinner  at  the  house.  But  that's  the  way  the 
president's  life  goes.   It  has  to  have  lunches  and  dinners,  and 


238 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles; 


Morris : 


Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles : 


we  try  to  give  them  a  decent  allowance  for  that  from  the 
university  board  of  trustees,  and  I'm  not  sure  it's  ever  been 
large  enough,  but  in  any  case,  it's  a  very  important  thing  for 
us  to  allow  for,  to  see  that  the  poor  wife  gets  enough  help  in 
doing  those  things. 

Is  it  expected  that  the  presidents'  wives  will  be  involved  in 
community  activities  that  relate  to  the  university? 


No.   I  don't  think  so.   I  don't  think  we  would  ever  demand  anything 
of  the  president's  wife.  We'd  like  to  feel  that  the  president's 
wife  will  be  a  hospitable  person  to  the  students  and  to  the  alumni. 
The  alumni's  good  will  is  of  great  importance,  of  course,  to  the 
university,  and  much  of  that  comes  from  their  being  treated  well 
by  the  president  and  his  wife.  Anne  was  marvelous  with  that, 
and  of  course  Anne  and  Wally  were  perfect.  And  Jing — amusing 
nickname  [spells  it] — is  lovely.   Everybody  loves  her.   She 
has  a  natural  interest  in  wider  activities — 

You  know,  one  time  there  was  a  protest  march  of  the 
students  on  the  campus,  and  here  came  Jing  along  in  the  march, 
waving  a  little  American  flag.   It  really  endeared  her  to  the 
board,  which  amused  me  as  I  watched.   The  most  conservative 
members  found  Jing's  participation  something  very  appealing, 
because  they  knew  it  was  real.   She  was  doing  what  she  believed 
in. 

This  sounds  like  it  might  have  been — what,  one  of  the  sort  of 
general  humanitarian  marches? 

I  don't  remember  what  the  exact  occasion  was,  something  to  do 
with  the  war. 

For  instance,  if  she  had  marched  in  protest  to  university 
contracts  with  the  government,  would  they  have  been  very 
pleased  with  that? 

Well,  I  don't  think  so.  And  I  don't  think  any  president's  wife 
would  want  to  do  anything  like  that.   This  was  certainly  a 
protest  against  the  war,  but  not  against  the  university  in 
any  way. 


Maintaining  Communication  and  Varieties  of  Dissent 


Morris: 


Maybe  we  could  wind  up  this  section  with  anything  that  we 
haven't  talked  about  that  you  felt  really  good  about  happening 
while  you  were  on  the  trustees,  that  you  had  a  part  in. 


239 


Charles:      Well,  I  felt  that  during  the  time  I  was  on  the  board,  there  was 
some  change  in  trustee  attitudes  toward  students.  I  think  they 
came  to  realize  that  these  students  were  not  really  monsters,  they 
were  just  acting  as  you  might  expect  young  people  to  act  when 
faced  with  dying  in  a  war  that  nobody  really  believed  in.  This 
is  what  they  couldn't  stand,  and  that's  what  I  kept  trying — 
Because  they  would  talk  of  other  reasons  for  protesting,  but 
they  weren't  the  reasons.   I  would  try  to  explain  that  to  the 
board.   These  young  people  didn't  want  to  die — to  go  be  killed 
in  Vietnam,  and  they  knew  that  it  was  going  to  be  doubted,  but 
the  doubt  was  going  to  continue  until  the  war  was  over. 

Morris:       That's  very  acute  of  you,  because  I  think  a  lot  of  people  didn't 
realize  that  that  was  what  the  basic  issue  was. 

Charles:      No,  I  don't  think  people  knew  what  the  basic  issue  was.   I  happen 
to  feel  that's  what  it  was. 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Did  any  of  the  students  say  that  to  you  in  some  of  these  smaller 
sessions? 

No,  no.   I  don't  think  so.  I  knew  that  I  had  their  affection  and 
support,  but  I  don't  know  whether  they  knew  why.   They  thought  I 
at  least  listened  when  they  had  protests. 

That  must  really  have  been  very  exciting. 

Oh,  it  was.   I  was  going  to  say  that  when  I  first — I  think  I 
mentioned  this  the  other  day — that  when  I  first  came  on  and  I  had 
to  take  these  positions  that  were  opposed  to  the  rest  of  the  board, 
I  kept  saying  to  myself,  "Now  look,  you're  not  here  to  agree  with 
everybody.  You're  here  to  be  honest  about  what  you  believe. 
That's  what  they  want."  And  I've  always  believed  that  is  what  is 
wanted  in  boards.  They  don't  expect  you  to  be  an  expert  in  how 
to  run  the  university.   They  expect  you  to  be  a  human  being  who 
has  certain  attitudes  toward  things. 

You  felt  that  it's  important  for  the  trustees  to  express  their 
opinions,  not  just  to  say  "yes"  to  everything. 

Exactly.   I  thought  it  was  important  to —  I  don't  mean  it  just 
as  an  opinionated  thing,  something  deeper  than  an  opinion, 
perhaps — a  feeling,  sense,  of  what  is  going  on  is  very  important 
to  be  known  by  the  board.   I  think  women  are  important.  Women 
can  dissent  many  times  when  a  man  wouldn't  dare,  you  know. 

Why  is  that? 


240 


Charles:      Well,  because  we  don't  have  to  go  down  to  the  PU  [Pacific 

Union]  Club  tomorrow  and  meet  them  all  and  have  them  look  at 
us  as  if  we  were  out  of  our  minds.  Women  are  not  expected  to 
be  quite  so  conservative,  I  guess,  as  a  man  is.  At  least, 
maybe  they  are,  but  whenever  I  find  an  ultra-conservative  woman, 
I  don't  think  she  belongs  on  these  committees,  or  I  think  you 
need  people  who  are  thoughtful  and  have  brought  real  feeling 
into  their  lives  and  their  relationships  with  other  human 
beings. 

Morris:       Do  you  generally  find  that  men  are  not  that  way? 

Charles:      Well,  no,  but  there  are  plenty  of  men  who  are  that  way,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  but  I  think  a  great  many  men  have  become  so 
enmeshed  in  corporate  dealings  and  are  so  impressed  with  the 
responsibility  of  being  on  a  university  board,  and  the  tremendous 
investment  you  have  there  in  buildings  and  land  and  professors 
and  all  that. 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 


I  have  wondered  about  that,  if  the  fact  that  a  university  is, 
after  all,  a  large  financial  activity  has  any  bearing  on  the 
trustees'  decisions? 

That's  right.  When  you're  on  a  university  board,  you're  listed 
in  the —  I've  forgotten  the  name  of  the  national  review  of 
people  on — and  responsible  for  large  amounts  of  money — corporate 
boards  and  that  sort  of  thing.  My  husband  was  much  entertained 
that  I  was  listed  in  that  book. 

Is  that  list  made  up  as  a  guide  to  people  who  are  wishing  to 
influence  those  decisions? 

I  don't  think  so.  I  think  it's  made  up  as  a  review  of  people 
who  are  in  those  positions.  I  don't  think  it's  especially  to 
be  used  for  purposes  of  influence  at  all. 

I  was  wondering  if  those  who  were  responsible  for  selling 
stocks  and  bonds  try  to  influence  university  trustees  to  "buy 
our  bonds." 


Charles:      Oh,  I  don't  think  so.   I  always  was  careful  to  see  that  I  was 
not  on  the  finance  committee.   I've  never  taken  responsibility 
for  investments  in  our  own  household  and  that  sort  of  thing. 
It's  not  that  I'm  not  a  feminist.   I'm  an  old-fashioned  one, 
all  right — I'm  told — but  I'm  happy  that  my  husband  is  willing 
to  do  that  for  our  family.   I  think  it's  hard  to  argue  about 
such  things.  And  I  don't  have  any  expertise  in  that  field. 

Morris:       Well,  if  you  could  concentrate  on  the  buildings  program  and  the 


241 


Morris:       nominating  committee  and  advocacy  for  students,  that  seems  like 
quite  a  lot. 

Charles:      That's  right.   It's  about  all  you  can  do,  you  know.  You  do  what 
you  can. 


[Interview  11:   9  March  1978] ## 


Charles:      What  I  wanted  to  say  was  that  among  the  young  guests  we  had  last 
night  was  a  young  chap  in  my  husband's  law  office,  a  very  bearded 
young  man,  and  he  said,  "Oh,  Mrs.  Charles,"  he  said,  "I've  been 
wanting  to  meet  you,  because  I  was  a  student  at  Stanford  when 
you  were  on  the  board  of  trustees."  And  he  said,  "You  know,  the 
students  were  convinced  that  you  were  the  only  one  who  ever 
listened  to  them  on  the  board  or  gave  them  any  consideration," 
and  I  said,  "Well,  I  don't  believe  I  was."  And  I  said,  "That's 
very  nice." 

He  said,  "Well,  you  remember  that  big  meeting  we  had,"  and 
all  of  a  sudden  I  thought  that  would  be  an  interesting  anecdote. 
The  students  invited  the  board  of  trustees  to  a  meeting  in  some 
big  auditorium  on  campus — I've  forgotten  which  one — and  I  had  a 
strong  impression  that  the  men  wouldn't  go  if  I  didn't  come 
with  them.   The  students  were  mad  at  everybody — but  evidently  it 
was  known  around  the  campus  that  they  weren't  including  me  in 
their  anger. 

I  sort  of  hemmed  and  hawed  about  it,  and  so  my  friends  on 
the  board  said,  "Yes,  you  come  now,"  and  so  I  said  all  right. 
So  we  marched  in  and  had  a — I  just  wanted  to  hear  what  they 
would  say  for  themselves,  and  the  others  did  too.  The  men  on 
the  board  were  terribly  good,  you  know,  about  these  things. 
But  my  conviction  was  that  I  didn't  want  to  behave  like  another 
man,  I  wanted  to  behave  like  a  woman  whose  background  was  in  some 
domestic  situations  where  the  important  consideration  was  how 
the  other  fellow  was  feeling,  and  what  you  could  do  about  that. 

Morris:       I  see. 

Charles:      Not  just  a  businesslike  effort  to  make  some  changes  or  something. 
So  we  had  a  comparatively  amicable  meeting. 

Morris:       Good.   So  generally,  you  found  that  businessmen — 


242 


Charles:      I  found  that  businessmen  would  pay  attention  to  me  and  were 

very  nice  to  me  about  these  things  and  modified  their  attitudes 
to  some  extent.  They  thought  I  was  a  little  bit  indulgent — the 
way  they  would  feel  about  their  wives,  I  imagine,  but — 

Morris:       But  having  indulged  you,  they  found  that  you  had  a  point? 
Charles:      Yes,  it  seemed  to  work  pretty  well. 

Morris:       What  was  the  name  of  the  young  man  who  was  the  guest  at  your 
house  last  night? 

Charles:      Oh,  his  name  is  David  Roberts. 
Morris:       And  he  is  still  advocating  change? 

Charles:      Oh,  I  think  so.   They  didn't  talk  about  it  last  night,  but  he's 
worked  hard  in  the  office.  My  husband  thinks  highly  of  him  as 
a  young  lawyer.   So  he's  not  rebelling  in  the  law  office, 
anyway.   They  all  got  over  those  things  after  the  war.   It 
was  always  the  war  that  was  causing  that,  you  know. 

Morris:       I  know  a  number  of  people  feel  that,  that  the  war  was  really 
upsetting — 

Charles:      Oh,  it  was.   They  didn't  want  to  die,  you  know.  When  you  think 
of  that,  who  wants  to  go  over  there  and  be  killed?  For  a  cause 
that  nobody  understands,  or  if  they  do  understand  it,  don't 
really  think  we  want  to  see  our  young  people  dying.   So  anyway, 
I  thought  it  was  kind  of  startling,  my  past  rising  up  and  facing 
me. 

Morris:       Yes,  it  is,  and  I  should  think  it  would  be  satisfying  to  find 
out  what  happened  to  some  of  the  students  that  you  knew  at 
Stanford. 

Charles:      Indeed,  yes.   I  didn't  know  them  well,  you  know,  but  I  would 
come  occasionally,  when  invited.   I'd  go  to  the  different 
students'  houses  and  answer  questions  that  they  had,  too. 
We  got  on  well. 

Morris:       Did  you  start  a  pattern?  Are  there  other  trustees  now  who 
continue  to  do  that  kind  of  informal  meeting  with  students. 

Charles:      Well,  yes,  and  others  did  them.  They  do  continue  doing  that, 

but  at  first  there  was  some  opposition  on  the  board.  The  older 
more  conservative  members  said  to  me,  "We  don't  think  you  ought 
to  be  going  down  there  and  seeing  the  students."  And  I  said, 
"Well,  why  not?"  Well,  because  it  was  not  dignified  on  the 


243 


Charles:      part  of  the  board.  And  I  said,  "That  time  has  passed."  After 

all,  we  are  not  statues  that  want  to  be  up  on  a  pedestal  because 
we  attained  the  great  honor  of  being  on  a  university  board. 

Morris:       Was  this  considered  a  revolutionary  attitude  on  your  part? 
Charles:      Not  conformist,  certainly.  They  were  all  nice  to  me,  you  know. 
Morris:       The  students? 

Charles:      No,  the  trustees.   In  spite  of  my  frequent  disagreements  with 

them.   But  I  have  always  felt  that  if  a  woman  would  keep  herself 
looking  nice  and  would  always  pay  attention  to  her  appearance — I 
used  to  wear  hats  that  amused  them — and  was  good  humored  even 
in  disagreement,  that  you  could  be  yourself  and  they  would 
welcome  it.   Ugly  women  don't  get  anywhere,  and  almost  any 
woman  can  look  nice  nowadays.  There  are  lots  of  aids  to 
appearance  that  we  can  use  if  we  don't  overdo  them. 

Morris:       I  think  that's  a  good  point.   If  you  have  no  additional  points 
on  Stanford — 

Charles:      No,  that's  all  I  was  thinking  of. 


244 


14.  PUBLIC  BROADCASTING,  LOCAL  AND  NATIONAL 


Early  Years  of  KQED,  Impact  of  Newsroom 


Morris:       I  thought  it  was  time  we  got  around  to  KQED  and  public 
broadcasting. 

Charles:      Oh,  yes. 

Morris:       I'd  like  to  go  back  to  when  you  were  first  on  the  KQED  board. 

Charles:      Well,  I  must  have  been  on  about  five  or  six  years,  when  I  was 
elected  chairman  of  the  board,  but  I  had  always  wanted  to  get 
into  educational  television  because  I  believed  it  was  the  only 
television  that  was  trying  to  make  the  best  use  of  itself. 

Morris:  Had  you  particularly  kept  an  eye  on  it?  I  know  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation  had  made  grants  when  the  station  was  first  getting 
started. 

Charles:      That's  true,  but  I  wasn't  on  the  Foundation  then.  When  I  was 
on  the  Rosenberg  board,  I  never  participated  in  discussions 
that  had  to  do  with  any  organization  that  I  was  involved  with. 
So  fortunately,  it  was  earlier  than  that  that  KQED  had  come  to 
Rosenberg  for  assistance. 

Morris:  That  would  have  been  in  the  late  '50s,  as  I  recall. 

Charles:  Yes,  I  think  so. 

Morris:  Your  vita  says  that  you  became  chairman  in  1973. 

Charles:  Right. 

Morris:  So  you  would  have  gone  on  the  KQED  board  in  the  late  '60s. 

Charles:  I  think  so.   But  I'm  bad  about  dates,  and  I  guess  you  find  most 


245 


Charles ; 

Morris: 

Charles; 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles: 


of  the  people  you  interview  are. 

It's  hard  to  really  pinpoint  a  date  that  far  back. 

As  far  as  I'm  concerned,  I  did  everything  about  five  years  ago, 
no  matter  when  it  was,  you  know.   But  KQED  was  a  very  difficult 
thing  for  the  chairman  of  the  board,  particularly,  because  the 
staff  was  always — in  fact,  as  soon  as  we  had  the  Newsroom 
program —  I  don't  suppose  there's  a  journalist  in  the  world 
who  doesn't  think  he's  better  qualified  to  run  any  organization 
than  the  people  who  are  running  it  are,  and  the  Newsroom  people 
were  convinced  they  could  run  KQED  much  better  than  the  board  of 
directors,  and  we  had  constant  difficulty  with  them.  Later  on 
they  inspired  the  last  rebellion  by  getting  some  members  to 
spearhead  it. 

They  didn't  want  to  take  any  cuts  in  budget  at  all.  They 
thought  they  were  the  most  important  thing  on  the  whole  screen, 
you  see.  And  we  would  have  to  argue  about  other  things  we  had 
that  people  enjoyed  watching. 

In  other  words,  there  was  a  question  of  actual  salary  cuts. 

Well,  there  was  a  question  of — no,  not  so  much —  ,  Yes,  there  was 
later  on,  I  think,  a  question  of  salary  cuts.  I'll  tell  you, 
getting  a  budget  that'll  work — I  think  in  any  of  the  arts,  if 
you  call  television  an  art — is  just  very  difficult.   It  seems 
to  go  down  the  drain.  You  just  have  an  awful  time  finding  out 
where  it  went. 

Could  you  get  a  handle  on  that,  why  that  would  be  so? 

Yes,  because  I  think  many  of  them  overpriced  their  services,  in 
their  own  minds,  to  a  great  extent. 

Let's  see.   I  did  have  a  nice  letter  from  Jim  Day.*  Was  he  still 
at  the  station  when  you  came  on  the  board? 

Let  me  see.  No,  he  wasn't.  But  Jim  and  I  have  remained  great 
friends  all  these  years.   He  left  for  that  marvelous — it  was  a 
marvelous  offer  he  had  in  New  York,  which  you  know  didn't  pan 
out,  and  left  Jim  kind  of  high  and  dry  back  there. 


In  Mrs.  Charles's  papers. 


246 


Charles; 


Morris: 
Charles: 
Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 


But  I  don't  think  anybody  but  Jim  could 've  dragged  KQED  up  to 
adulthood,  you  might  say.   He  and  Jon  Rice,  whose  name  should 
always  be  mentioned  with  Jim's  in  speaking  of  how  KQED  got 
started,  had  been  working  together  for  years.   Jon  did  the 
programming  part,  and  Jim  was  the  administrative  director 
always,  and  Jim  was  very  exacting  of  what  the  standards  should 
be.  He  paid  close  attention  to  every  aspect  of  it. 

Is  Mr.  Rice  still  there? 

Yes,  he  is. 

Had  he  been  with  KQED  from  the  earliest  days  in  the  late  '50s? 

From  the  start,  yes.  You  might  talk  to  him.   I  think  you'd 
find  it  interesting.  He  is  a  very  sound  program  man.  You  know, 
you  almost  have  to  have  second  sight  to  know  what  it  is  that 
people  want  to  see. 

Yes,  I  think  that's  true  in  television  and  radio  and  theater. 

In  all  those  places.  Jon  seemed  to  have  that,  to  know  when  we 
ought  to  continue  a  program  and  when  we  should  or  should  not 
discontinue  it.  He  really  was  quite — I  think  and  has  been 
always  over  the  years — remarkable  about  that.  He's  a  very  fine 
man.  Both  he  and  Jim  knew  Mrs.  McLaughlin  somehow.   I  don't 
know  how  she  got  acquainted  with  them.  But  you  know,  she  knew 
the  people  who  were  stirring  around  San  Francisco  and 
accomplishing  things,  and  she  knew  those  two  men  quite  well. 

I  was  wondering  if  you  have  any  thoughts  on  how  KQED  evolved 
from  the  purely  educational  into  a  more  broad  community  kind  of 
thing. 

Yes.   I  think  it  was  a  national  trend  for  public  television  to 
do  that.  And  then  they  took  advantage  of  opportunities,  you 
see.  The  Newsroom  was  started  on  account  of  the  newspaper 
strike.* 

Right. 


This  program  was  a  nightly  report,  using  a  newspaper  city  room 
set,  with  working  reporters  presenting  their  day's  findings  and 
discussing  them  with  each  other.  Begun  in  1968,  it  continued 
on  the  air  until  1977,  although  with  several  format  changes. 


247 


Charles:      There  wasn't  any  news,  and  it  was  a  marvelous  thing,  the 
spontaneity  of  it,  when  it  first  started  as  a  delight  to 
people.  They  simply  adored  it.  But  you  see,  it's  very  hard 
to  continue  that  sort  of  thing  when  it  isn't  being  done  as  a 
real  necessity.  That  is,  to  continue  the  feeling  of  spontaneous 
response  to  a  public  need.  We  were  now  in  competition  with  the 
other  newscasters,  but  ours  was  still  more  interesting  because 
it  was  so  much  more  human.  And  I  don't  mean  to  disparage  what 
they  did,  but  I  should  say  that  they  were  stormy  petrels  in 
the  operation  of  the  station — they  were  not  careful  about 
inferences. 

Morris:       Were  the  people  who  started  Newsroom  mostly  from  the  Chronicle, 
which  was  on  strike? 

Charles:      They  came  from  many  newspapers,  but  many  of  them  went  back  to 
work  the  minute  the  strike  was  settled  and  didn't  stay  with 
television.  Of  course,  though,  they  had  established  wages  which 
were — this  was  a  high-costing  operation  for  us  to  put  on 
ourselves.  We  weren't  really  financed  to  pay  the  kind  of 
salaries  that  they'd  been  used  to  getting. 

Morris:       It  would  also  be  more  people  on  a  given  hour's  time  than  you 
had  in  most  of  the  programming  at  that  time. 

Charles:      Right.  Of  course. 

Morris:       Do  you  recall,  was  it  the  people  at  the  station,  the  staff,  who 
said,  "We  can  move  in  and  do  something  about — ? 

Charles:      They  never  said  that.   It  was  just  the  way  they  acted,  you  see. 
They  were  always  trying  to  get  people  to  come  in  and  start 
trouble  because  the  board  wasn't  doing  what  they  wanted,  and  if 
anybody  expressed  a  particular  affection  for  Newsroom,  then 
they  would  like  to  see  this  person  start  a  movement  to  force 
the  board  of  directors  to  finance  Newsroom  to  the  hilt,  to 
whatever  it  needed,  and  cut  out  anything  else  we  had  to  cut 
out. 


Morris:       I  was  thinking  about  the  start  of  Newsroom  itself.  Did  the 

station  make  a  decision  that  they  could  fill  the  news  lack  in 
San  Francisco  because  of  the  strike? 

Charles:      Yes,  I  think  so.  Jon  Rice  can  tell  you  about  that.  Because  it 
must  have  been  his  decision.  Of  course,  the  board — we  tried 
very  hard  never  to  get  into  actual  programming.  We  felt  that 
that's  the  manager's  job,  to  decide  what  programs  the  finances 
we  have  are  able  to  support.  But  if  every  program  threatens 
to  go  on  strike  for  him,  why  then  he'll  come  in  and  say  that 


248 


Charles:      Newsroom  won't  continue  unless  they  are  paid  so  much  and  so  much, 
and  that's  going  to  do  thus  and  so  to  the  budget.  That's  when  the 
board  would  get  the  feeling  that  we  had  a  stormy  petrel  on  our 
hands.  Many,  many  people  enjoyed  Newsroom  and  were  very  unhappy 
when  it  finally — 

Morris:       By  the  time  it  closed  down  last  year,  it  had  changed  considerably 
from  its  original  format. 

Charles:      Oh,  indeed  it  had,  yes. 

Morris:       In  a  way,  the  other  stations  have  gone  into  a  similar  format 
with  their  news  programs. 

Charles:      Yes.   But  they  haven't  been  able  to  do  the  same  things. 

Morris:       The  actual  investigative  reporting  on  the  air. 

Charles:      Yes.   Or  they  haven't  felt  as  comfortable  about  doing  it. 

Morris:       When  you  went  on  the  board  in  '68,  Mortimer  Fleishhacker  was 
chairman,  wasn't  he? 

Charles:  Yes.  He'd  been  chairman  for  a  very  long  time. 

Morris:  From  the  beginning,  I  discovered. 

Charles:  Yes. 

Morris:  That's  unusual,  isn't  it? 

Charles:      Very  unusual.  It  doesn't  make  for  good  feeling  in  the  board, 
you  know. 

Morris:       I  wondered  about  that. 

Charles:      Presidents  have  to  make  a  real  effort  to  get  out  after  four 
years,  or  whatever  they  set  in  their  own  minds  as  a  proper 
length  of  time. 

Morris:       Was  there  any  special  reason  that  he  was  president  for,  what, 
fifteen  years  or  so? 

Charles:  Well,  Fuller  Brawner  was  his  close  associate  in  that,  and  they 
would — sometimes  Fuller  would  be  president  and  sometimes  Morti 
would.  They  would  change  office,  which  would  give  in  effect  a 
discontinuity,  but  actually  it  was  the  same  thing. 


249 


President,  1972-1974;  Management  Difficulties  and  Broader 
Representation  on  the  Board 


Charles:      So  by  the  time  I  was  ready  to  be  president,  there  was  considerable 
feeling  in  the  board  that  they  must  have  a  change.  And  part  of 
it  was  that  we  were  not  satisfied  with  our  then  executive. 

Morris:       That  would  be  Dick  Moore  at  that  time? 

Charles:      Dick  Moore.  Because  Dick  was  not  a  manager,  he's  a  creative 
artist,  and  he  shouldn't  have  accepted  the  job.  Jim  Day  had 
thought  he  would  be  the  best  person  to  succeed  him.   So  we  had 
followed  Jim's  wishes.  But  you  can't  do  that.  You've  got  to 
have  somebody  who  understands  management  and  something  about 
making  your  wishes  felt  in  management,  which  was  very  hard  for 
Dick  to  do. 

Morris:       To  express  his  ideas  to  the  board,  or  to  express  his  ideas  and 
supervise  the  staff? 

Charles:      Well,  that  was  what  he  couldn't  do.  No,  the  board  began  to 
realize  very  quickly  that  he  was  not  able  to  carry  out  the 
functions  that  you  would  expect  from  a  manager.   So  anyway,  I 
felt  very  strongly  about  that,  because  I  had  seen  too  many 
television  stations  destroyed  by  not  having  a  manager  who 
could  manage — knew  how  to  manage  money  and  programs,  for 
instance.  When  we  got  our  new  manager  in,  he  said  there 'd 
been  a  lot  of  slippage  [laughs],  which  is  what  they  call,  in 
kind  terms,  money  seeping  out  in  ways  that  you  didn't  expect 
it  to. 

Morris :       Did  you  have  the  feeling  when  you  accepted  the  chairmanship 
that  this  was  one  of  the  things  the  board  wanted  to — ? 

Charles:      Indeed  I  did.  And  it  was  certainly  one  of  the  things  they 
knew  I  was  going  to  do  if  I  were  chairman. 

Morris:       And  Mr.  Fleishhacker  didn't  feel  the  same? 
Charles:      He  didn't  want  to  do  it,  no. 

Morris:       In  general,  with  non-profit  organizations,  the  business  of 
selecting — 

Charles:      Making  that  kind  of  change  is  very  difficult.  Yes,  very. 

Morris:       How  does  the  board  bring  itself  to  the  point  where  it  agrees  that 
the  present  manager  is  not  the  person — ? 


250 


Charles ; 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles; 


Well,  unfortunately,  it  does  have  to  have  a  couple  of  meetings 
when  the  manager  is  not  present.   That  is  hard  to  do.  You  have 
to  do  that  at  someone's  home,  or  some  other  way.   It's  really — 
unless  you  have  the  kind  of  a  manager  who — or  the  kind  of 
person  who  realizes  that  and  would  absent  himself  anyway.   So 
we,  I  believe,  had  some  of  those  meetings,  and — 

Was  it  a  unanimous  thing  on  the  board? 

You  have  to  have  a  general  feeling  that  it  had  to  be  done. 
People  don't  like  to — Dick  has  a  very  appealing  personality, 
which  he  used  to  a  great  degree  in  trying  to  save  his  job.  When 
I  went  in  to  see  him,  I  really  was  terribly  harsh.   I  said, 
"Now  look — "  and  Dick  said,  "I'm  no  manager.  I  don't  pretend 
to  be." 

"Well  then,"  I  said.   "You  must  not  hold  onto  a  job  you 
can't  do." 

He  said,  "You're  saying  that  to  me?" 

And  I  said,  "I  am  saying  that  to  you.  I  would  say  that  to 
anybody  who  was  trying  obviously  to  do  something  that  was  outside 
his  skills." 

But  anyway,  those  were  very  hard  days.  Because,  you  know, 
our  meetings  began  to  be  invaded  by  a  group  led  by  a  man  and  a 
woman  who  would  just  break  into  the  meeting  and  come  in. 

Was  this  the  beginning  of  the  "community  access"  kind  of  thing? 

No,  it  really  wasn't.   I  began  to  try  to  find  out  what  they 
were  trying  to  do,  and  what  I  finally  found  out  was  that  they 
just  wanted  to  govern  the  station  and  keep  Newsroom  at  its 
original  level  of  financing.  That's  the  trouble,  you  know, 
when  you  have  that  kind  of  rebellion. 

Were  they  members  of  KQED? 

They  were  members,  but  they  just  wanted  a  new  board  that  they 
would  lead.   Those  are  dangerous — in  my  view — very  dangerous 
people  because  you  shouldn't  yield  your  loyalty — whatever  you 
think  your  organization  represents — to  a  group  who  were  obviously 
seeking  it  for  their  own  reasons.  They  talked  a  lot  about 
community  access.   But  that's  something  we  were  working  on  all 
the  time. 


Morris: 


What  did  it  seem  that  this  man  and  woman  wanted  to  do? 


251 


Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles : 
Morris : 
Charles : 
Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles ; 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles; 


They  wanted  to  come  in  and  be  the  head  of  it,  to  run  it.  I 
mean,  they  wanted  to  run  KQED,  that's  what  they  wanted. 

They  wanted  to  be  on  the  board. 

They  wanted  to  be  more  than  the  board. 

They  wanted  to  be  the  station  managers. 

Yes. 

I  see.   That's  odd. 

I  must  say  that  I've  been  through  a  lot  of  things  in  my 
community  work,  but  I  was  really  sort  of  stymied  by  that;  my 
father  would  have  said,  "They  had  the  Indian  sign  on  me."  I 
didn't  exactly  know  how  I  could  cope  with  it. 

What  did  they  seem  to  want  to  do  with  the  station? 

You  don't  know  what  they  wanted  to  do.  Now,  actually,  the 
woman  in  this  case  resigned  from  the  board  after  she  got  on 
for  a  year.  We  were  just  opening  up  the  board  to  community 
elections.   And  she  was  elected,  and  so  was  one  of  the  men 
who  was  leading  it.   She  got  off  the  board  a  year  later,  and 
said,  "It's  impossible  to  do  anything  with  KQED,"  which  was 
really  in  a  way  kind  of  laughable,  because  that's  what  she 
wanted  to  do,  to  help  run  KQED. 

But  you  see,  it  is  very  hard  to  run  a  station,  where  it's 
such  an  amalgam  of  people,  feelings,  and  points  of  view.   Because 
the  staff  has  never  been  treated  just  as  a  group  that  works  for 
them  separated  from  management.  They  were  people  whose 
opinions  we  were  interested  in. 


Kind  of  what  they  call  a  collective  now. 
the—? 


That  they  were  part  of 


Well,  they  weren't  a  voting  part  of  anything,  but  you  always  knew 
what  they  wanted  too.  But  you  weren't  always  going  to  do  it, 
particularly.   For  instance,  if  one  program  group,  like  Newsroom, 
wanted  to  be  sure  they  got  the  lion's  share  of  all  the  money, 
you  would — 

They  were  lobbying  for  their  own  program,  in  other  words. 

Yes.   And  you  couldn't  have  that  because  if  every  program  started 
to  do  that,  you'd  just  have  a  terrible  mess. 


252 


Morris:  In  those  days,  did  the  program  people  come  and  sit  in  on  the 
board  meetings  and  do  their  own  presentation? 

Charles:      No.  No.  That  was  done  by  the  manager,  sort  of  like  a  provost 
in  a  university  setting.  He  was  the  one  who  represented  the 
points  of  view  of  the  staff,  and  so  forth. 

Morris:       But  it  sounds  as  if  you  did  have  a  fair  amount  of  involvement 
between  the  various  board  members  and  some  of  the  staff. 

Charles:      Well,  we  certainly  did,  but  our  newcomers  took  the  position  that 
only  they  knew  what  the  staff  wanted,  only  they  knew  what 
Newsroom  wanted.  They  were  obviously  agents  for  Newsroom. 

Morris:       How  had  you  decided  to — you  said  you'd  "opened  up  the  board 
process  to  community — 

Charles:      We  had  been  working  for  about  a  year  on  a  method  by  which  we 

could  have  elections,  which  is  not  easy  to  do.  Because  you  have 
to  have  a  way  of  counting  that  is  beyond  reproach.   The  first 
thing  people  did  was  to  accuse  us  of  not  counting  the  votes 
fairly.   So  after  this  great  rebellion  and  everything,  I  insisted 
that  any  system  of  counting  would  have  to  be  supervised  by  someone 
who  was  believed  to  be  completely  impersonal  about  the  whole 
thing. 

Morris:  By  "open  elections,"  that  meant  that  anybody  who  had  paid  their 
dues  and  become  a  member  of  KQED — ? 

Charles:      No,  we  had  a  system  of  nominating,  and  the  board  would  nominate 
a  certain  number  of  people  the  way  they  always  had,  through  the 
nominating  committee,  and  then  they  had  what  they  called  the 
petition  system,  which  I  think  is  what's  working  now. 

Morris:       How  many  people  are  we  talking  about,  in  terms  of  members  who 
might  want  to  run? 

Charles:  Oh,  I  think  you're  talking  about  maybe  twenty-five  or  thirty 
people.  I  would  say  just  a  handful  of  leaders,  as  always  in 
these  things. 

Morris:       Out  of  what,  twenty  thousand  members? 

Charles:  Yes,  right.  It  really  wasn't  what  you'd  call  a  fair  shake,  but 
that's  not  what  rebellions  are.  They  seldom  are  representative 
numbers,  but  what  would  be  really  needed  to — 

Morris:       Are  they  people  who  are  already  fairly  much  involved  in  the 
organization? 


253 


Charles:      No.  Usually  people  who  know  very  little  about  how  it's  really 
run.  They  get  hold  of  a  slogan  like  "opening  it  up  to  the 
community,"  and  that  sort  of  thing,  which  sounds  good. 


Membership,  Fundraising,  Programming 


Morris:       Are  there,  in  addition  to  the  board,  active  committees  of 
volunteers  who  work  on  things  for — 

Charles:      Well,  there  are,  but  those  are — we  couldn't  live  without  our 

auction  every  year,  and  the  membership,  which  is  one  of  my  pet 
theories —  One  of  my  worst  arguments  with  Dick  Moore  was  when 
he  came  into  the  board  one  day,  and  he  said,  "Well,  we  can  never 
raise  enough  money  in  the  community  to  run  this  station." 

I  said,  "Dick,  we  haven't  even  tried."  And  I  told  him  how 
I  felt  it  had  to  be  done.  So  it's  one  of  those  things  you  have  to 
work  on  every  day.  You  can't  just  have  a  membership  drive.  You 
have  to  keep  after  people  to  make  them  realize  that  the  only  way 
KQED  can  operate  is  by  voluntary  gifts  through  membership. 

Morris:       The  auction,  that's  been  around  a  long  time,  hasn't  it? 
Charles:      Yes,  it  was  already  underway  before  I  came  on  the  board. 
Morris:      Did  Mr.  Moore  think  the  auction  was  not  a  good  idea? 

Charles :      No ,  he  thought  it  was  all  right ,  but  he  really  was  so 

inexperienced  in  the  problem  of  financing  things.  After  all 
this  was  over,  I  read  where  he  was  writing  an  article  on  how  to 
finance  a  station  and  using  the  ideas  I  had  presented  to  him 
that  day  that  he  came  by  and  said — he  really  got  jumped  on. 
That  was  the  first  argument — that  was  the  most  serious  argument 
we  had,  was  over  that.   I  told  him,  "It  has  to  be  done  in  a 
wholehearted  way,  this  membership  business.  It's  one  of  our 
most  important  operations. 

Morris:       There  are  those  out  there  in  audience  land  who  sometimes 
express  the  opinion  that  the  membership  pledge  night — 

Charles:      Is  overdone,  yes. 

Morris:       — takes  as  much  time  as  soap  commercials  and  whatnot. 

Charles:      Well,  I'll  tell  you,  I  don't  know  what  to  say  about  that. 

We  have  to  make  that  delicate — that's  why  being  chairman  of 


254 


Charles:      that  board  is  very  hard.  Because  you  have  to  make  that 

delicate  decision  between  how  often  can  you  remind  people 
to  be  effective  and  what's  too  much.  Everyone  has  a  different 
idea,  you  know.  You  could  have  twenty  thousand  ideas  and  you 
have  twenty  thousand  members.   I  don't  know  how  many  members  we 
have  right  now,  but  they've  kept  at  it  very  well. 

Morris:       In  addition  to  the  idea  that  membership  is  something  you  have  to 
work  on  all  year  'round,  what  other  key  ideas  did  you  have,  in 
terms  of  funding  the  station? 

Charles:      Well,  I  was  hoping  that  somehow  we  would — not  merely  in  terms  of 
fund  raising,  but  I  was  hoping  in  terms  of  programming — that  we 
would  get  back  to  some  of  the  things  that'd  been  the  most 
important  we  had  done  years  ago,  which  was  being  able  to  show 
local  news  in  action,  where  we  would  be  the  only  station  that 
would  show  a  big  argument  on  the  board  of  supervisors,  or  something 
of  that  sort.  But  that's  a  very  expensive  thing  for  us  to  do, 
and  we  just  have  to  get  the  money  for  it  somehow. 

The  first  operations  of  Newsroom  finally  were  picked  up  by 
Ford  Foundation,  and  the  trouble  was  that,  as  is  so  frequently 
the  case  when  a  foundation  finances  something,  they  do  it  at  a 
higher  rate  than  we  could  carry  on  when  it's  over. 

Morris:       Was  that  part  of  a  fairly  massive  amount  of  money  that  Ford  was 
putting  into  educational  television? 

Charles:      Yes,  it  was. 

Morris:       Did  you  have  to  go  to  Ford  and  apply  for  it,  or  did  they  just 
appear  and  say,  "We're  going  to  fund — " 

Charles:      Well,  I  don't  really  know.   Let  me  think.   I'm  not  sure  that  I 
remember.  But  actually,  their  grant  to  Newsroom  came  before 
their  big — 

Morris:       Their  big  program  for  educational  TV  grants  nationally. 

Charles:      You  know,  at  one  point,  they  went  in  to  stimulate  the  growth  of 
the  station  by  a  competitive  sort  of  thing. 

Morris:       Matching  grants  kind  of  thing? 
Charles:      Yes,  and  it  worked  very  well. 

Morris:       I  wonder  if  they  would  have  talked  at  all  with  people  at  KQED, 

if  they'd  funded  them  earlier  in  developing  their  grant  program. 


255 


Charles:      No,  not  earlier,  I  don't  believe.  No,  we  didn't  ever  talk  over 
how  to  do  it  with  them  that  I  know  of.   The  staff  might  have. 
When  Ford  gave  Stanford  their  matching  grant  some  years  ago,  they 
talked  to  every  board  member  individually,  which  was  really — I 
think — a  very  sound  way  to  do  it,  to  see  if  the  board  believed 
it  could  be  done. 


Morris : 
Charles : 


Did  they? 

Foundation  representatives  came  to  my  house,  they  came  to  every 
trustees'  office  or  home,  and  said,  "Now  what  do  you  really  think 
about  Stanford?  Do  you  think  Stanford  has  the  potential  to  do 
this?" 


Well,  we  were  an  optimistic  bunch,  and  we  had  good 
leadership,  as  we  have  had  over  the  years.  Wally  Sterling  was 
an  exceptional  fund  raiser,  among  his  many  other  qualities.  And 
I  think  the  board  was  unanimous  in  its  feeling  that  we  could 
undertake  this — let  me  see,  what  were  we  going  to  raise? — several 
million  dollars. 


Morris :       Was  the  sense  that  Ford  was  trying  to  find  out  if  the  board 
members  had  the  interest  to  actually  work  on  this? 

Charles:  Well,  no.  I  don't  think  they  meant  it  that  way.  It  was  just  to 
see  if  we  had  the  real  welfare  of  Stanford  at  heart,  if  we  would 
support  the  effort,  you  know. 

Morris:      Was  it  similar  at  KQED? 

Charles:      No,  they  didn't  do  that.  That's  what  I  say — I  think  it  might  have 
been  a  good  thing  if  they  had  done  it  that  way. 

Morris:       You've  mentioned  that  organizations  work  better  if  the  members 
occasionally  have  some  tea  and  cookies  together,  some  chance  to 
get  acquainted  as  individuals. 

Charles:      Indeed  they  do.   It's  one  of  my  favorite  precepts  in  starting  an 
organization  or  an  auxiliary.  I've  got  a  young  man  coming  in 
pretty  soon  who  wants  me  to  tell  him  how  to  do  it,  and  I'm  also 
working  with  the  women  who  are  now  running  the  school  volunteers, 
about  that  sort  of  thing.   I  mean,  just  operating  an  auxiliary. 
That's  what  I  really  enjoy  doing  the  most  now,  in  these  years,  is 
giving  people  what  help  I  can  out  of  my  background  experiences. 

Morris:       Yes,  that  must  be  very  satisfying  to  you. 

Charles:      Absolutely.  Very  enjoyable  for  me,  and  it's  especially  delightful 
when  they  go  out  and  do  exactly  what  you  told  them  to  do,  and  you 


256 


Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 

Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles ; 
Morris : 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles: 
Morris: 
Charles: 


can  just  see  the  thing  blooming,  you  know.   But  a  lot  of  people 
don't  do  what  you  tell  them  to  do.   They  go  out  and  then  they 
muddle  around  for  a  while,  and  then  they  come  and  ask  me  if  I 
won't  please  do  it  for  them.  Well,  I  won't,  because  I've  only 
got  so  many  organizations  I  can  do  in  my  lifetime. 


KQED  would  be  a  different  kind  of  situation,  wouldn't  it? 
was  not  an  auxiliary,  per  se. 


There 


Oh,  well,  yes,  you  could  have  and  did  have — I  don't  know  whether 
they've  got  a  Friends  of  KQED  now  or  not.  There  was  some  effort 
in  the  national  scene  to  get  all  the  stations  to  start  a  Friends 
of  the  Station  organization. 

In  addition  to  just  the  membership? 

The  membership,  yes.  And  in  addition  to  whatever  their  fund 
raising  activities  were,  like  the  auction  and  so  forth. 

Would  the  auction  take  the  place  of  a  Friends  of — 

No.  Because  there's  no  socializing  connected  with  it.  Well, 
there's  a  little  bit,  but  not  the  way  it  has  to  be  to  make  a 
strong  organization.   The  auction  has  a  great  deal  of  leadership 
that  comes  from  the  person  hired  by  the  station  to  run  it.  They 
have  a  staff  person  just  for  that  purpose,  who  works  all  year 
'round,  because  of  course,  she  has  to  accumulate  the  donations 
that  are  being  auctioned  and  then  get  the  personnel.  And  people 
just — the  difference  you  have  is  that  people  are  longing  to  work 
in  television,  you  know.   It's  such  a  mysterious  kind  of  thing. 

And  glamorous. 

Exactly. 

And  does  that  carry-over  to  the  auction  itself? 

Oh,  I  believe  so,  yes.  Although  interestingly  enough,  you  never 
get  members  from  the  people  who  buy  things  in  the  auction. 
Afterwards,  you  try  to  find  out  if  they're  interested  in 
joining — no,  they're  not. 

Sure,  put  them  on  the  mailing  list. 

Yes. 

And  they  don't  join. 

They  don't  want  to,  no. 


257 


Morris:       How  about  the  people  who  work  on  the  auction? 

Charles:  Oh,  well,  they  are  members  as  a  rule,  just  as  a  matter  of  course. 
I  don't  think  we've  absolutely  insisted  on  that.  We  may  now,  you 
see.  I've  been  out  for  two  or  three  years.  Things  change. 

Morris:       Well,  we're  interested  in  how  things  were.  Does  the  group  that 
works  on  the  auction  ever  develop  any  leadership  that  then  comes 
on  the  board? 

Charles:      Oh,  indeed  yes.  We  watch  that  very  closely,  and  we  frequently 
bring  onto  the  board  people  who've  been  the  lay  chairmen  of  the 
auction  or  worked  very  hard  in  that  whole  process.   But  it's 
really  remarkable  what  they  do.   I  really  stand  in  awe  of  those 
women  who  run  that  thing. 

Morris:       It's  an  incredible  task. 

Charles:      Oh,  enormous.  Will  you  excuse  me  a  minute? 

Morris:       Yes.   [Tape  off  briefly]  I  was  admiring  your  garden. 

Charles:      Tommy  Church  designed  it  for  us.  I  got  to  know  him  when  I  was 

on  the  Stanford  building  and  grounds  committee.  He  designed  all 
the  Stanford  plantings.  He's  really  been  marvelous  for  us. 

Morris:       What  a  couple  of  people  have  said  about  KQED  is  that  the  late 

'60s,  when  you  went  on  the  board,  was  the  end  of  the  "hero"  phase, 
that  it  had  been  new  and  untried,  and  that  for  educational 
television  in  general,  the  late  '60s  and  early  '70s  were — 

Charles:      Yes,  there  was  a  big  change.  Because  I  was  on  a  lot  of  those 
committees  in  the  East,  you  know.   I  was  terribly  busy.  And 
they  made  me  chairman  of  the  program  committee  for  the  Public 
Broadcasting  Service.  And  I  had  a  very  enjoyable  time  with  it. 

Morris:       Arlene  Daniel's  paper  reported  a  comment  that  I  thought  might 
have  come  from  you,  "I  have  to  devote  all  my  energy  to  my  work 
in  public  broadcasting  now,  but  it's  not  healthy  to  do  that  for 
long."  Is  that  you? 

Charles:      Well,  I'd  say  that  about  any  organization.   Because  you  lose 

perspective.  At  least,  that's  been  my  policy,  is  to  never  lose 
my  perspective  on  what  I'm  doing,  to  keep  my  fingers  in  enough 
pies  that  I  see  how  what  we  do  affects  the  rest  of  the  community. 

I  remember  being  very  surprised  when  a  very  intelligent 
friend  of  mine  said,  "Well,  now  that  you're  going  on  the  Stanford 
board,  you're  going  to  resign  from  everything  else,  aren't  you?" 


258 


Charles:      And  I  said,  "I  wouldn't  think  of  it.   I  must  see  what  effect  it 
has  on  everybody  else,  what  Stanford  may  decide  to  do.   It's 
really  been  very  nice  for  me. 

Morris:       How  did  you  feel  that  KQED  did  affect  the  rest  of  the  community, 
what  impact  it  had  on  San  Francisco? 

Charles:      Well,  I  think  that  it  really  was  a  very  nice  effect  in  many 
ways.   Because  I  think  people  felt  an  affection  for  it — that 
they  would  never  think  of  in  connection  with  a  TV  station  except 
something  that  appealed  to  the  community  so  much,  and  I  mean 
literally  asked  them  for  things.   But  it  was  public  education 
in  the  East,  PBS,  that  got  this  whole  thing  of  community 
participation  started,  and  of  course  it  is  a  good  thing. 


Recruiting  Leadership 


Charles:      But  the  trouble  is,  there  are  certain  boards  of  directors  on 

which  I  don't  believe  anybody  should  serve  until  they've  served 
before  on  something  else,  and  get  an  idea  of  what  the  relation 
ships  are  or  how  they  operate. 

Morris:       And  you  think  KQED  is  that  kind  of  a  board? 

Charles:      I  think  KQED  is,  and  so  is  the  board  of  trustees  of  a  university. 
Something  where  you  need  a  little  expertise  in  your  experience 
before — 

Morris:       In  how  a  community  functions? 

Charles:      In  how  an  organization  functions,  the  staff  in  partnership  with 
the  lay  people,  and  the  responsibilities  of  the  top  management 
of  the  staff,  and  those  things.  And  respect  for  staff  and 
understanding  that  the  place  couldn't  exist  without  them.  You 
learn  all  those  things  in  smaller  organizations  that  aren't 
quite  so  important  to  themselves  and  to  the  community.  Well, 
they're  all  important  to  themselves,  but  I  mean — think  of  a 
university  and  the  impact  it  has,  and  how  important  it  is  that 
it  survive  whatever  problems  may  face  it.   But  in  any  case, 
that  doesn't  always  work. 

It's  one  of  those  generalizations  that  you  hope  you're 
going  to  decide  who  the  president  will  be  in  time  to  give  him 
a  little  training,  but  you  never  do  because — you  never  can, 
because  you  just  never  can  get  people  to  face  it  that  might  be 
what  they  want  to  do. 


259 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 
Morris: 

Charles : 
Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris : 
Charles : 

Morris : 
Charles : 

Morris : 
Charles : 

Morris : 


You  can  decide  who  you  would  like  to  have  be  your  successor  as 
chairman,  but  it's  difficult  to — ? 

But  you  can't  be  assured  that  they  will  be.  And  it  isn't  a 
question  of  your  imbuing  somebody  with  something  as  much  as  it  is 
with  their  having  a  very  real  understanding  of  what  leadership 
means  in  that  organization. 

But  you  also  said  something  about,  "It's  hard  to  convince  people 
that  they  want  to  take  on  this  job." 

Yes.   Oh,  very!   In  fact,  I  wouldn't  dare  open  up  that  question, 
because  sometimes  it's  premature,  you  know. 

It's  one  of  the  standard  things  that  people  say,  you  know,  "I 
don't  have  the  skills,  and  I  don't  have  the  time  to  take  on  the 
chairmanship." 

I  know.   I  understand  that,  yes. 
What  do  you  do  about  that? 

Well,  you've  got  to  just  say,  "Well,  don't  even  think  about  it. 
I  just  want  you  to  understand      what  I  have  to  do  in  order  to 
be  president  here,  it  won't  hurt  you  to  know  that  if  you  are  ever 
chairman."  I  think  you  have  to  play  it  very  cool.  You  can't  put 
the  pressure  on  because  you  can't  guarantee  their  election. 

No.  Not  on  something  where  you've  got  an  open  election.  But 
in  other  organizations — 

In  some  organizations  they  have  a  president-elect  is  what  you 
were  going  to  say? 

Is  that  a  useful  device? 

Well,  I've  never  thought  about  it.  I've  only  seen  it  in  the 
big  national  organizations,  and  not  locally.  But  there  may  be 
some  organizations  that  do,  if  I  knew  about  them. 

The  chamber  of  commerce  occurs  to  me. 

Yes.  But  it's  really  a  little  different  from  the  way  we 
operate. 

I  was  thinking  of  the  other  model,  where  the  nominating  committee 
presents  a  single  slate  of  officers  and  directors  for  vacancies. 
In  that  kind  of  a  situation,  normally  those  officers  are  elected. 


260 


Charles : 
Morris : 

Charles: 
Morris: 

Charles: 


They  must  be  elected, 
elected. 


Your  by-laws  provide  that  they  will  be 


Morris: 
Charles : 

/ 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 

Charles : 
Morris : 

Charles : 


When  they're  presented  by  a  nominating  committee,  usually  no  one 
votes  against  them. 

That's  right. 

How  does  the  nominating  committee  go  about  convincing  somebody 
that  that  person  has  the  skills? 

Well,  they  have  to  say,  "We  think  you  can  do  this  job,  whether 
you  do  or  not.  We'd  like  you  to  at  least  allow  us  to  put  your 
name  in  nomination."  Of  course,  the  people  you  really  almost 
never  want  are  the  ones  who 're  so  eager  that  you're  afraid  of 
them. 

Right. 

I'm  always  a  little  uneasy  about  people  who  are  going  after  some 
top  job. 


I'm  always  rather  surprised,  I  guess, 
and  their  willingness  to  take  it  on. 


at  their  self-confidence 


Well,  I'm  not,  because  usually  they've  got  some  other  purpose  in 
mind.  You  know,  what  you  have  to  be  so  leery  of  are  people  who 
really  want  to  make  some  use  of  your  organization,  in  their  own 
personal  life  or  their  own  personal  climbing  toward  somewhere,  if 
that's  what  they're  doing,  whatever  it  might  be. 

What  seems  to  be  a  happening  in  many  organizations  in  recent  years 

is  that  people  who  are  experienced  in  various  community 

activities  are  asked  to  come  in  to  a  new  organization  as  president. 

Of  course.  Of  course. 

How  do  you  convince  them  that  they  should  take  on  the  presidency 
of  this  organization? 

Yes,  right.  Well,  all  you  can  do  is  say  that,  "We've  been 
observing  you  for  a  long  time,  and  we  feel  that  your  special 
skills  are  what  are  much  needed  by  this  organization.  We'd  like 
to  give  you  as  much  help  as  we  can  in  the  operation." 

Do  you  know  there  are  some  people  who  just  play  their  cards 
so  close  to  their  chest  that  you  can't  give  them  any  help,  because 
they've  always  got  their  moves  all  laid  out  in  their  heads,  and 
they're  not  letting  anybody  else  in  on  it.  And  it's  hard.   It's 


261 


Charles:  like  the  United  States  and  its  peace  treaties.  How  do  you  let 
these  things  all  be  done  in  public  when  it  can  become  known  to 
people  who  may  harm  you  with  their  knowledge? 

Morris:       How  about  the  other  thing  that  I  understand  is  happening 

sometimes — again  with  national  organizations — the  president 
is  paid,  or  the  chairman  is  paid? 

Charles:      Well,  it's  really  more  of  a  change  of  title  than  it  is  a  change 
of  policy.   That  is,  now  in  almost  all  the  television  stations, 
the  manager  is  called  "president."   So  that's  why  the  lay  person 
is  called  "chairman  of  the  board."  I  think  you'd  have  to  examine 
the  organization  very  carefully  to  be  sure  that  what  they're 
doing  is  not  just  elevating  their  paid  executive  to  the  title 
of  president,  which  is  now  so  customary.   I  don't  think  you  could 
get  a  paid  person  to  take  it  if  he  didn't  get  the  title. 

Morris:       Does  that  affect  the  quality  of  the  voluntary  kind  of  people? 

Charles:  No.  It  doesn't  if  you  understand  that  it's  part  of  the  scene. 
It's  part  of  the  way  you're  operating. 

Morris:  You  wanted  to  stop  at  11:30  today. 

Charles:  But,  my  dear,  I  took  my  time  out.   Is  that  fair  to  you? 

Morris:  It's  now  11:35.   So  I  think  we're  even. 

Charles:  All  right.   Thank  you,  Gaby.   You've  been  very  considerate  of  me. 


Interaction  with  Commercial  Television 
[Interview  12:   17  March  1978] ## 


Morris:       We  should  pick  up  with  anything  that  you  want  to  finish  so  that 
we  complete  the  KQED  story. 

Charles:      Yes.   Well,  KQED  is  of  course  one  of  the  earliest  of  the 

educational  broadcasting  stations,  and  it  was  one — you  have 
to  admire  the  people  who  had  the  imagination  to  realize  what 
the  reservation  of  that  channel  for  educational  television 
was  going  to  mean.   I  mentioned  last  time,  I  think,  that 
Jim  Day  and  Jon  Rice  were  the  two  young  executives  who  really 
persuaded  people  to  get  it  started.   We  were  very  lucky  to 


262 


Charles :      have  had  them. 

But  public  television  is  plagued  by  a  problem  in  selecting 
its  managers  because  so  many  of  the  men  who  come  up  through  the 
ranks — I  should  say  they  were  mostly  men,  but  there  are  a  few 
women — are  only  working  in  the  creative  part,  not  the  management 
part.   So  when  it  comes  down  to  the  hard  facts  of  managing  a 
station,  they  are  not  the  best  qualified.   In  commercial  television 
the  manager's  job  is  one  of  real  management  of — 

Morris:       A  business  enterprise? 

Charles:      A  business  enterprise.   But  you  just  have  a  hard  time  seeking 

around  to  find  people  who  have  some  business  experience  to  come 
into  management  of  public  television. 

Morris:       That  makes  me  wonder  if  there's  much  interchange  of  staff  or 
other  things  between  commercial  television  and  educational 
television. 

Charles:      Well,  there  is  if  the  commercial  stations  are  so  inclined. 
Because  the  educational  stations  have  always  been  the  poor 
relations,  having  as  they  do  to  raise  their  own  money, 
whereas  the  commercial  stations  are  given  a  certain  budget  by 
the  national  outfit,  whether  it's  KGO  or  NBC  or  whatever  it  may 
be.   Then  they  live  within  that  budget.  We  have  to  raise  our 
money. 

It  used  to  be  in  the  early  days  that  some  of  the  commercial 
stations  would  offer  to  help  whenever  they  could  by  giving  a 
piece  of  old  equipment  to  KQED  or  sharing  the  use  of  their 
station.  Once  or  twice  during  an  auction,  we  had  trouble  with 
our  station  going  off  air,  and  one  of  the  commercial  stations 
would  come  in  and  offer  air  time  on  theirs.  That  was  much 
appreciated.   It  wasn't  until  the  last  few  years  that  the 
public  television  program  became  kind  of  a  threat  to  the 
commercial  station. 

Morris:       You  do  think  that  that  has  happened? 

Charles:      Oh,  I  do  think  so,  yes.  Not  as  much  as  will  happen,  providing 
public  television  can  concentrate  on  doing  what  they  see  to  be 
their  field,  with  expertise  and  taste.   But  this  will  take  a  long 
time,  because  everything  is  so  expensive  in  the  world  of  television, 
You  just  are  shocked  when  you — when  we  all  switched  over  to  color 
television,  those  color  cameras  are  worth  I've  forgotten  how  many 
thousands  of  dollars  apiece,  and  you  have  somehow  to  scrape 
together  the  money  to  get  one  or  two  of  whatever  you  need.  You 
will  notice  at  times  on  the  public  television  that  they  go  to 


263 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris : 


Charles: 


black-and-white  occasionally,  especially  during  the  auction, 
when  they  can't  use  their  color  for  everything  on  the  auction. 

Is  it  more  expensive  to  operate  the  color  equipment  than  the 
black-and-white,  too? 

I  don't  think  especially  so,  but  I  think  that — a  camera  can  only 
do  a  camera's  job.  You  can't  expect  a  camera  to  be  two  cameras. 
So  that  running  a  public  television  station  is  a  delicate  balance 
between  the  many  egos  involved. 


Yes,  I  can  imagine  that, 
than — 


The  approach  is  more  of  a  creative  one 


Well,  the  people  in  the  programming  don't  consider  themselves 
just  hired  programmers.  They  consider  themselves  part  and  parcel 
of  the  operation  of  the  station.  They  want  to  see  that  it's  run 
according  to  their  wishes  and  views.  Of  course,  at  a  commercial 
station,  they  get  the  programs  from  some  central  place,  and  they're 
not  up  against  that  kind  of  a  battle. 


Where  did  Mr.  Day  and  Mr.  Rice  come  from? 
experience? 


What  was  their  prior 


Well,  they  had  been  working  in  the  early  days  of  educational 
television.   I  think  that  was  their  background,  actually,  but 
I  don't  remember  where,  because  I  wasn't  in  on — those  were 
very  early  days.  They  had  the  courage  and  the  backbone  to  back 
up  their  difficult  situations.  Also,  there  are  always  a  certain 
number  of  people  who  wanted  to  use  public  television  one  way  or 
another.   And  the  management  had  to  be  very  tough  about  that. 

Use  it  in  what  way? 

Well,  to  advertise  themselves  or  to  promote  something. 
Sometimes  they  were  subtle  about  it,  but  nothing  could  be 
quite  subtle  enough  to  avoid  viewers  realizing  what  was  being 
done. 

Could  you  remember  a  couple  of  examples  of  the  kinds  of 
things  where  people  were  trying  to  promote  their  own  purposes? 

Well,  I  would  only  say  that  people  who  were  not  quite  qualified 
in  the  creative  world  to  have  a  show  would  press  and  press  and 
get  all  kinds  of  people  pushing  for  them,  and  then  you  would  only 
have  to  find  that  they  really  weren't  up  to  it.  It's  a  grueling 
thing,  television  is. 


Morris: 


I  would  wonder  if  some  of  these  pressures  that  you  speak  about 


264 


Morris:       also  happen  in  commercial  television? 

Charles:     Well,  it's  a  more  resistable  force  because  the  commercial 

television  is  usually  backed  up  not  only  by  its  own  business 
of  running  a  business  [laughs]  to  be  competitive,  but  by  the 
sponsors  or  whatever  show  it  is.  The  sponsors  are  the  big 
headache.  Because  sometimes  they  do  have  friends  or  relatives 
that  they  want  to  see  get  on  the  air.  It's  just  a  madness,  you 
know.  People  just  love  to  see  their  faces  on  television.   It  is 
a  most  hypnotizing  kind  of  a  force  for  people.   They  just  want 
to  get  them  somehow. 

But  Gaby,  I  don't  know  that  I  can  think  of  an  example.   I 
wasn' t  always  in  on  the — nobody  was  in  on  these  things  that  the 
poor  manager  and  a  program  manager  had  to  handle  frequently. 
They  had  to  do  it  by  themselves.  But  they  could  rely  on  their 
board  of  directors.  They  had  good  boards  of  directors  in  those 
early  days  who  backed  their  manager. 

Of  course,  educational  television  was  feeling  around 
"What  is  educational  television?"  Sometimes  they  thought  that 
if  it  was  interesting  it  wasn't  educational.   So  that  was  one  of 
the  big  changes  that  came  in,  when  we  began  to  analyze  in 
preparation  for  a  national  organization — what  could  qualify 
as  "educational"?  And  we  certainly  expanded  that  thought  because 
we'd  realize  we  were  the  only  people  who  would  do  certain  things, 
such  as  putting  on  very  esoteric  films  or  programs  of  the  arts. 
They  were  a  little  out  of  the  routine  thing — only  to  find  that 
people  were  really  very  much  interested  in  them.  We  have  paved 
the  way  quite  frequently  for  what  commercial  television  can  do, 
and  now  to  some  extent,  is  doing. 

Morris:       Is  that  the  sense  in  which  you  meant  that  sometimes  commercial 
television  has  come  to  see  public  television  as  a  threat? 

Charles:      Oh,  well.  No,  I  don't  mean  that.   I  just  mean  everybody  measures 
everything  on  audience  ratings,  and  every  once  in  awhile,  the 
so-called  Nielsen  ratings  would  give  KQED  a  bigger  percentage 
of  the  audience  than  any  of  the  commercial  stations,  and  that 
was  just  a  difficult  experience. 

Morris:       What  kinds  of  things — ? 

Charles:      Well,  I  think  mostly  after  our  Newsroom  came  in,  that  form  of 
news  became  very  popular. 

Morris:       What  about  things  like  the  auction?  Does  the  viewer  rating  go 
up  at  that  point? 


265 


Charles:      Yes,  it  does.  We  have  lots  of  people  watching  our  auction,  but 
it  really  doesn't  make  any  difference  as  far  as  our  holding  an 
audience  goes.   It's  some  kind  of  a — different  kind  of  an  idea, 
you  know. 

Morris:       In  a  way,  kind  of  like  the  World  Series? 
Charles:      Exactly.  That  sort  of  thing,  yes. 

Morris:       Would  you  say  that  the  presence  of  public  television  has  increased 
the  kind  of  community  service  broadcasting  that  the  commercial 
stations  do? 

Charles:      Oh,  I  think  so,  yes.   [Tape  turned  off  briefly] 


Thoughts  on  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  and  Teilhard  de  Chardin 


Charles:      I  was  reading  at  some  length  the  correspondence  of  Justice 

Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  and  he  was  the  one — I  think  I  may  have 
quoted  this  to  you  before — about  how  he  wanted  to  be  part  of 
"the  action  and  the  passion  of  his  time." 

Morris:       That's  a  marvelous  phrase,  yes. 

Charles:      And  I  always  felt  that  that  particularly  applied  to  my  work  in 
television,  because  certainly  it  got  very  passionate  at  times, 
and  it  applies,  I  think,  to  all  volunteer  work.  You  can't  help 
but  begin  to  get  into  what  is  happening  in  the  current  world. 

Morris:       In  the  community  at  large. 

Charles:      Yes.  So  that  I've  used  that  a  great  deal  in  making  speeches. 
And  I  think  it  gives  people  a  kind  of  a  thrill  to  feel  they're 
part  of  the  action  and  the  passion  of  their  times,  which  probably 
never  occurred  to  them,  you  know. 

Morris:       I  was  wondering  if  people  said  this. 

Charles:      Oh,  yes.   I  think  it  always  gives  a  little  lift  to  people  who 

are  doing  volunteer  work  to  hear  what  great  minds  have  said  about 
such  things.  Teilhard  de  Chardin  is  a  man  I've  read  a  great  deal 
of,  and  he  has  some  very  felicitous  ways  of  expressing  this,  that 
whenever  you  lift  your  hand  to  do  something  for  others,  you  are 
being  impelled  by — you  may  not  realize  it — by  the  force  that 
wants  to  build  the  world  for  good,  and  you  are  then  part  of  the 


266 


Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles: 


great  movement  for  the  betterment  of  this  world.   "All  that  rises 
must  converge." 

How  did  you  happen  to  become  interested  in  Teilhard 's  writing? 

Because  I  always  follow  allusions  that  I  read.   I  once  read  a 
remark  in  a  current  magazine  about  this  man.   It  was  the  first 
I'd  ever  seen  about  him.  So  I  started  immediately  trying  to  run 
him  down  in  the  library  (I  always  said  that  I  met  him  in  the 
library) .  I  think  I  perhaps  have  mentioned  before  that  during 
Mayor  Alioto's  incumbency,  he  telephoned  me  one  day  and  asked  me 
if  I  would  be  willing  to  preside  at  a  symposium  of  scholars  that 
he  was  putting  on  with  U.C.  Medical  Center  on  Teilhard  de 
Chardin.   I  said,  "Why,  Your  Honor,  I  can't  understand  your  asking 
me  to  do  that."  And  he  said,  "Do  you  know  anything  about  Teilhard 
de  Chardin?" 

And  I  said,  "Yes,  I  do,  it  happens,  because  I've  read  a  great 
deal  about  him." 


He  said,  "There! 
this." 


It  just  shows  that  you  were  meant  to  do 


Morris: 


And  I  said,  "Well,  I  would  like  to  do  it."  Because  I'm 
familiar  with  how  to  preside,  and  that  is  no  problem.  The  point 
is,  I  always  feel,  when  you're  presiding  at  a  meeting  of  scholars 
or  people  who  know  more  than  you  do  about  things,  you  don't  even 
want  to  try  to  bone  up  and  become  a  competitor  to  them.  The  main 
thing  is  to  be  able  to  hold  the  discussion  in  the  direction  that 
it's  going  and  make  it  possible  for  them  to  say  what  they  want  to 
say. 

It's  unexpected  to  hear  of  the  mayor  organizing  something  like 
that. 

Well,  it  was  interesting.  He  had  done  it,  I  always  understood, 
because  one  of  his  sons  was  in  Jesuit  school.  And  although 
Teilhard  was  frowned  on  by  the  Catholics  during  his  lifetime, 
the  boy  became  very  much  interested  in  what  he  could  find  out 
about  him.   So  the  mayor  used  his  own  money,  and  he  got  the 
University  of  California  to  help  sponsor  these  lectures.   I've 
forgotten  what  they  used  to  call  them  now. 

The  divinity  schools  in  Berkeley  have  an  annual  symposium.   It  may 
be  one  of  those. 


267 


Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles: 
Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 


Yes.  Well,  no.  This  was  done  by  the  U.C.  Medical  Center,  who 
were  carrying  on  at  that  time — they  published  a  book  on  it 
afterwards.*  It  became  one  of  their  projects,  although  I  think 
the  mayor  contributed  heavily  to  the  project  financially.  It  was 
really  quite  a  remarkable  thing  for  a  city  to  have  a  mayor  who 
was  interested  in  doing  that. 

It's  always  interesting  when  people  who  are  as  active  as  you  and 
Mayor  Alioto  also  find  the  time  for  purely  intellectual  pursuits. 

[Laughs]  Well,  life  is  pretty  empty  without  it,  you  know.  William 
James  says  in  some  of  his  writing — I  think  this  in  the  Varieties 
of  Religious  Experience — that  unless  what  you  are  doing  seems  to 
increase  the  general  well-being  of  the  world,  you  are  going  to 
find  it  very  empty,  and  Teilhard  de  Chardin  speaks  of  that,  too. 

You've  spoken  of  that  yourself. 

Have  I? 

In  terms  of  your  motivation. 

Well,  it  certainly  means  that  to  me.  I  was  very  lucky  that 
volunteer  work  seemed  to  fit  right  into  my  whole  education  and 
experience  as  an  ideal  thing  for  my  enjoyment  and  pleasure  to 
work  in. 

I  don't  mean  that — I  made  a  young  women  very  angry  with  me 
one  day  when  I  said,  "Don't  do  volunteer  work  if  you  don't  enjoy 
it."  And  she  said  to  me,  "What  do  you  mean?  People  don't  have 
to  enjoy  things." 

I  said,  "They  do  have  to  enjoy  things.  There's  no  point  to 
it,  otherwise.   Everybody  suffers  if  they're  not  enjoying  it. 
And  there  are  so  many  different  kinds  of  volunteer  work  to  do, 
you  can  always  find  something  that  adds  to  your — "  When  I  talk 
about  pleasure,  I'm  not  talking  about  a  hedonistic  sort  of  thing, 
but  I'm  talking  about  addition  to  one's  experience  or  your 
knowledge  or  your  self-esteem  or  whatever  it  may  be. 

Or  personal  satisfaction. 


Teilhard  de  Chardin;  In  Quest  of  the  Perfection  of  Man,  Gerald 
0.  Browning,  Joseph  L.  Alioto,  Seymour  M.  Farber,  eds., 
Associated  University  Presses,  Cranbury,  New  Jersey,  1973. 


268 


Charles:      Right. 

Morris:       Would  you  say  that  you're  a  religious  person,  or  is  this  more  a 
philosophical  belief? 

Charles:      Oh,  I  am  a  religious  person.  Yes,  I  was  brought  up  in  a  Methodist 
Sunday  school.   The  Methodist  Sunday  school  is  noted  for  its 
studies  of  the  Bible.   That  is,  it  uses  the  New  Testament  as  the 
basis  for  its  work  in  the  Sunday  school.  So  that  as  a  child,  I 
became  very  familiar  with  all  of  the  stories  of  Jesus  and  the 
parables,  and  they  all  seemed  absolutely  true  to  me,  as  they  do 
now. 


Professional  and  Lay  Roles;  KQED,  American  Conservatory  Theater, 
and  Stanford 


Morris: 
Charles 


Morris : 
Charles; 


We  got  off  KQED  there  for  a  minute. 

I  was  just  saying  where  there  was  the  action  and  the  passion — 
In  some  organizations  like  KQED,  there's  much  emotion  goes  into 
that.  Don't  know  why  it  should  be  so,  but  it  does.  Well,  you 
find  issues  emotional  that  you  least  expect,  you  know. 

Things  blow  up  emotionally  when  you  don't  expect  them? 

Yes.  And  people  become  emotional  about  things  that  don't  look 
emotional  to  you  at  all.   I  remember  when  I  was  on  the  Stanford 
board,  and  I  was  asked  to  be  chairman  of  buildings  and  grounds, 
which  I  was  thrilled  to  be,  because  it  was  the  first  time  a  woman 
had  been  chairman  of  anything  on  the  board  of  trustees.   I  noted 
previously  the  amount  of  passion  that  got  involved  in  the  selection 
of  an  architect  or  the  appearance  of  a  building  or  the  landscaping, 
or  any  of  those  things  that  you  wouldn't  think  would  have  to 
involve  passions  but  they  did. 

I  felt  that  the  real  reason  they  got  so  mixed  up  with  all  the 
strong  feelings  was  because  the  members  of  the  board  weren't 
thoroughly  briefed  on  what  it  was  that  we  were  trying  to  do. 
Because  you  would  come  in  there  with  the  planning  people,  having 
worked  carefully  on  the  location,  the  siting  of  the  building 
and  the  materials  to  go  into  it,  and  sometimes  it  would  be  presented 
to  the  board  as  a  factual  matter.  Well,  it  wasn't  factual. 
Somebody  had  to  choose  those  things. 

I  made  up  my  mind  that  I  would  see  that  somehow  that  board 
was  made  familiar  with  what  was  needed. 


269 


Morris: 
Charles; 


Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles: 


Morris : 


Charles : 


So  they  had  enough  information — 

Enough  information  to  feel  they  were  part  and  parcel  of  the 
decision.  At  KQED,  the  main  thing  that  the  board  wanted,  as 
all  boards  do,  was  to  kept  fully  informed  of  what  was  going  on. 
It  takes  a  very  artful  manager  to  know  how  to  do  that.  I  think 
when  we  look  back  in  years  to  come,  that  this  pattern  we  have  for 
volunteer  work,  that  is  the  operating  of  community  institutions, 
of  the  lay  personnel  involved  in  the  board  of  directors  with  the 
staff,  and  with  the  manager  as  a  qualified  professional  person, 
it's  going  to  be  a  wonder  that  it  could  be  made  to  work  as  well 
as  it  did.   Sometimes,  you  know,  it  just  collapses. 

A  lay  board? 

I  mean  the  relationship  collapses.   Because  if  you  don't  have  a 
manager  who  is  sensitive  to  the  needs  of  the  board  and  what  it 
knows,  what  it  must  know  in  order  to  function  comfortably,  then 
the  whole  thing  dissolves  into  a  torrent  of  irate  people  who 
feel  that  they've  been  misinformed  when  they  got  on  the  board. 
A  lot  of  people  think  that  when  they  get  on  the  board,  that 
they're  going  to  run  the  show,  you  know.  This  they  have  to  be 
disabused  of.  But  at  least  they  are  going  to  know  what  the  show 
is  about,  and  what  it's  doing. 

For  instance,  on  our  theater  board — of  the  [American] 
Conservatory  Theater — occasionally  you  find  a  board  member  who 
thinks  he's  going  to  cast  the  shows  and  select  which  ones  to  put 
on,  you  know.  Well,  you  just  have  to  distinguish  between  what  is 
the  professional  area  and  what  is  the  lay  area. 

You  worked  for  awhile  on  the  ACT  board,  did  you? 

Oh,  indeed  I  did.   I  helped  to  bring  it  here  to  San  Francisco. 
It  had  been  down  at  Stanford  doing  a  summer  program,  and  I  heard 
that  they  wanted  to  come  to  San  Francisco  if  they  could.   So  I  got 
hold  of  Cyril  Magnin,  who  was  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
at  that  time,  and  asked  him  if  he  thought  the  city  would  look 
favorably  on  bringing  a  theater  in  residence  in — a  company.  And 
he  put  together  a  committee  and  was  really  marvelous. 

The  ACT  group  had  some  ties,  too,  to  the  Actors'  Workshop,  didn't 
they? 


Well,  they  supplanted  the  Actors'  Workshop, 
they  really  didn't  have  ties  to  it. 


They  carried  on,  but 


Morris : 


I  was  thinking  that  the  workshop  was  absorbed  by  ACT. 


270 


Charles:  Oh,  they  have  taken  on  some  of  the  people  under  their  professional- 
Morris:  Right,  and  the  Actors'  Workshop  no  longer  exists,  as  such. 
Charles:  Oh,  no.   It  doesn't  exist.  Well,  there  isn't  room  for  two  of  those. 
Morris:  It  was  a  much  smaller  group. 
Charles:  Much  smaller. 

Morris:       But  it  did  have  ties  to  Actors'  Equity  and  was  beginning  to  be  a 
professional  theater. 

Charles:      Right.  Exactly. 

Morris:       Were  you  with  ACT  just  in  that  transition  period  when  it  was 
moving  from  Stanford  and  getting  set  up? 

Charles:      Oh,  I  went  on  their  first  board  here,  when  they  formed  a  board  and 
I've  worked  closely  with  them  ever  since.  I  haven't  been  able  to 
give  a  great  deal  of  time  to  it,  but  it's  been  one  of  my  pleasant 
experiences.   I've  enjoyed  it  a  lot. 

Morris:       It  sounds  as  if  you  think  of  that  more  as  a  hobby  than  as  a 
primary — 

Charles:      Well,  you  know,  though  Gabrielle,  I  remember  once  someone  saying, 
"Now  you  know,  in  your  life,  you've  got  to  have  work  and  play  in 
equal  amounts.  And  you  ought  to  analyze  what  you're  doing,  where 
it  fits."  I  suddenly,  in  analyzing  my  work,  realized  that  my 
boards  of  directors  were  not  work  to  me.  They  were  play.  They 
were  my  pleasures. 

Morris:  I  think  that's  marvelous.  When  you  think  of  the  wear  and  tear  of 
presiding  at  meetings  and  organizing  all  the  details  that  need  to 
be  followed  up  between — 

Charles:      But  it's  so  pleasant.   It's  such  an  interesting  thing.   I  don't 
think  any thing's  worth  doing  if  it  isn't  work — some  work 
involved  in  it.   I  have  never  liked  the  "social  life,"  so  to 
speak.   I  like  to  have  something  to  talk  about,  and  not  just 
chit-chat — gossip,  if  you  will. 


271 


Public  Broadcasting  System;  Reorganizing  for  Federal  Funding 


Morris:       When  you  went  on  the  national  PBS  board,  did  you  find  that 

working  on  a  national  board  was  a  different  kind  of  experience 
than  working  directly  in  a  community  project? 

Charles:      Well,  not  as  different  as  you  might  think.  That  was  what 

surprised  me.  When  I  got  back  there  to — of  course,  then  it 
gets  to  the  organization  stage,  but  the  problems  were  essentially 
the  same,  of  hiring  the  right  people  to  do  the  things  that  had  to 
be  done,  and  keeping  peace  between  the  board  of  directors  and  the 
professional  staff.  It  was  all  the  same. 

Morris:       That  was  the  nature  of  the  reorganization,  wasn't  it? 

Charles:      The  reorganization  was  to  recognize  the  role  of  the  stations  in 
the  public  television  world,  whereas  there 'd  been  talk  on  the 
national  scene  that  public  television  just  happened.   I  think 
without  people's  having  it  explained  to  them,  they  would  not 
understand  it.  Whereas  in  the  commercial  television  world,  these 
programs  come  out,  are  piped  out  from  New  York  to  them. 

Morris:       From  the  network  to  the  local  station. 

Charles:      From  the  networks  to  the  local  station.   In  the  public  television 
world,  a  great  many  programs  originate  in  their  own  local  stations. 
Actually,  as  a  result  of  the  national  organization,  programs  were 
beginning  to  be  set  up  to  come  out  to  the  local  stations — things 
that  the  local  stations  couldn't  afford  to  do  by  themselves.  As 
a  group,  they  could  all  contribute  to  the  showing  of  a  national 
ballet  or  a  national  opera  or  something. 

Morris:       Was  it  the  local  stations  that  had  felt  the  need  of  some  kind 
of  a  national  organization? 

Charles:      No,  I  have  to  say  that  it  was  this  very  gifted  man  from  Texas,  a 
man  who  was  a  retired  corporation  executive,  who  saw  what  had  to 
be  done.  He  realized  that  public  television  would  have  no  power 
if  it  continued  being  a  lot  of  separate  little  entities  all 
around.  They  needed  to  be  pulled  together  into  a  single 
organization — that  is,  in  some  ways.  Not  to  lose  their  identity 
in  their  community,  but  to  have  some  force  on  the  national  scene. 
It  had  to  be  done,  the  stations  had  to  be  gotten  together  to  do 
it. 


But  you  see,  the  managers — there  were  great  battles  going  on 
these  days.  Many  of  the  managers  had  what  we  used  to  call  at  the 
university  "their  fiefdoms,"  where  they  don't  really  want  anybody 


272 


Charles:      to  come  in,  even  though  it  was  to  their  advantage  to  have  it  done 
this  way,  for  the  national  programming  they  could  get. 

Morris :       Who  was  this  Texas  gentleman? 

Charles:      Mr.  Ralph  Rogers  was  his  name.   I  can't  speak  highly  enough  of 
him.  He  just  gave  freely  of  his  time  and  his  real  ability  in 
this  kind  of  thing. 

Morris:       Had  he  been  involved  in  television  in  any  manner  before? 

Charles:      In  Texas,  yes.   Just  the  local  station,  the  way  we  all  had. 

That's  how  we  came  to  be  there.  We  were  selected  from  our  local 
stations. 

Morris:       And  each  station  had  a  representative? 

Charles:      No,  no,  no.   It  was  not  that  way.   It  was  much  narrower  than  that. 
I  don't  remember  why  I  was — I  had  been  on  some  kind  of  a  national 
committee  that  Jim  Day  had  asked  me  to  go  on — I've  forgotten 
what  it  was,  but  I  became  acquainted  with  some  of  the  people  on 
the  national  scene.  At  this  time,  they  were  not  elected  by  any 
group  or  anything,  they  were  just  appointed.   So  that  the 
geographic  location  of  the  stations  was  represented.   But  of 
course,  the  geographic  location  of  the  station  is  not  as  important 
as  whether  it's  in  a  large  city  or  a  small  city,  because  of  what 
you  have  to  deal  with  in  your  programming. 

Morris:       In  terms  of  the  potential  audience  for  it? 
Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       At  what  point  did  the  national  organization  begin  to  be  interested 
in  funding  and  the  matter  of,  I  guess,  first  the  Ford  Foundation 
and  then  the  national  government? 

Charles:      Yes.  Well,  right  at  the  beginning.   Ralph  Rogers  saw 

immediately  that  lack  of  money  was  what  was  holding  everything 
back,  and  that  it  wasn't  all  going  to  be  able  to  be  squeezed  out 
of  the  community.   There  had  to  be  a  way  to  get  the  federal 
government  to  contribute  to  it.  That  was  what  he  started,  to 
try  to  get  a  bill  through  the  Congress  that  would  partly  finance 
public  television,  through  the  local  stations. 

Morris:       Was  that  while  you  were  on — ? 

Charles:      And  that  was  while  I  was  on,  too.  What  a  battle  that  was! 

President  Nixon  took  a  terrible  dislike  to  public  television. 
He  didn't  like  the  kind  of  news  they  gave  about  him.   So  he 


273 


Morris : 
Charles: 

Morris: 
Charles : 


Charles:      vetoed  one  bill  for  funding  and  started — after  anything  that  came 
along,  he  gave  instructions  to  his  staff.  They  were  not  to  let  it 
through  if  they  could  avoid  it.  So  Ralph  Rogers  went,  right 
after  that,  through  his  own  congressman  in  Texas  and  his  own 
people — influential  Republicans  and  so  forth — but  it  was  hard 
going  for  a  while. 

Wasn't  there  some  question  that  public  television  in  general 
was  too  liberal? 

Well,  that  was  Nixon's  objection  to  it.   It  was  altogether  too 
liberal  for  him,  and  too  free-speaking. 

Did  you  get  in  touch  with  California  representatives? 

Well,  no,  not  really.  Then  Mr.  Rogers  had  to  organize  the 
stations  into  keeping  in  touch  with  their  congressmen,  being 
sure  that  they  knew  what  we  were  doing,  so  that  when  the  request 
for  funds  came  up,  we  could  get  some. 

Morris:       And  how  did  that  work? 
Charles:      It  worked  out  quite  well. 

Morris:       If  Mr.  Nixon's  objection  was  that  public  television  was  too 

liberal  and  should  be  shut  down,  I  should've  thought  that  would 
give  you  a  lot  of  Democratic  support  for  free  speech. 

Charles:      Oh,  it  wasn't  that  simple. 
Morris:       Really? 

Charles:  It  didn't  become  a  partisan  issue  because,  I  guess,  we  were  just 
as  hard  on  some  Democratic  congressmen  and  potentates  as  we  were 
on  the  Republicans. 

Morris:       Does  this  go  back  to  Newsroom  again? 

Charles:      No.  Well,  it's  that  type  of  news.   It  was  coming  out  of  Washington 
by  then.  But  of  course,  San  Francisco  was  notorious  for  the 
free-speaking  on  Newsroom. 

Morris:       Any  subject. 
Charles:      Yes,  on  anything. 

Morris:       Were  there  specific  attempts  to  have  any  of  the  stations  change 
their  types  of  news  broadcasts  and  their  policies? 


274 


Charles:     No.   Because  one  thing  that  pervaded  the  whole  structure  of 

public  broadcasting  was  freedom  of  speech  and  the  right  of  each 
community  to  determine  what  each  station  should  be.   Because  we 
felt  that  a  peculiar  strength  of  educational  television — so 
called — was  the  fact  that  it  really  came  from  the  grassroots. 

What  Ralph  Rogers  did  was  structure  a  kind  of  an  organization 
that  would  have  an  annual  conference,  to  which  delegates  were 
sent  from  each  station  then.  And  the  directors  of  the  succeeding 
boards  would  be  elected  from  those  people.  Ralph  did  a  remarkable 
thing.  He  just  cannot  be  praised  highly  enough  for  that. 
Every  time  I've  written  to  him,  I  have  said,  "Someday,  you'll 
be  really  appreciated."  I'm  surprised  there  haven't  been 
articles  about  him  in  all  sorts  of  national  magazines. 

Morris:       History  reports  that  you  did  succeed  in  getting  federal  funding. 
Was  that  while  Mr.  Nixon  was  still  President? 

Charles:      Let  me  see.  Yes,  I  think  so.   I  think  we  were  able  to  get  the 
support  of  Congress.   I  think  it  was  when  poor  Nixon  was 
beginning  to  fade,  and  so  it  was  a  little  easier  to  get 
support  outside  the  White  House. 


National  Programming  and  Ralph  Rogers 's  Role 


Morris:       There  was  a  program  committee  that  you  served  on. 

Charles:      Yes. 

Morris:       Was  that  at  the  same  time? 

Charles:      Same  time.  We  had  quite  a — our  main  problem  there  on  the 

national  scene  was  trying  to  be  sure  that  we  got  quality  and 
variety  in  our  programs. 

Morris:       It  was  more  guidelines  rather  than  actual  programs? 

Charles:      Oh,  no.   It  was  what  we  would  produce  from  the  national  for  the 

local  stations  to  use.   The  local  stations  didn't  have  to  use  the 
national — in  fact,  they  had  to  buy  the  programs.   So  every  year 
we  set  up  a  system  of  previewing  what  we  were  doing,  beaming  it 
out  to  the  stations  so  that  they  could  decide  what  they  wanted 
to  buy.  All  those  things  were  innovations,  and  naturally 
aroused  the  same  hostility  as  always  to  change.  Any  change, 
I've  discovered,  is  difficult.  The  main  thing  is  to  keep  cool. 


275 


Morris:       That's  a  curious  comment,  when  so  many  times  people  are  saying, 
"We  want  some  change"  in  whatever  is  going  on. 

Charles:      Well,  they  don't  really  mean  it.  As  soon  as  they  get  it,  they 
start  fighting  with  it. 

Morris:       So  then  if  you've  decided  that  there  do   need  to  be  some  changes, 
how  do  you  deal  with  people's  anxieties? 

Charles:      Well,  you  have  to  attempt  to  get  some  sort  of  an  agreement  on 

what  it  is  they  want,  and  try  to  remind  them  that  they  themselves 
have  asked  for  it. 

Morris:       Let's  see.  Mr.  Nemerovski  mentioned  some  meetings  in  Dallas  and 
West  Palm  Beach  that  he  recalls  as  being  very  lively? 

Charles:      Oh,  yes.  Ralph  called  meetings  all  around  the  country.   There 
were  some  meetings  out  here,  too. 

Morris:       And  did  some  of  these  discussions  about  reorganization  get  rather 
heated? 


Charles:      Oh,  very  heated,  on  the  part  of  the  managers.   They  were  going  to 
lose  something  to  the  lay  board.  You  see,  previously  the  managers 
had  the  sole  communication  with  any  national  issues  and  were  all- 
powerful  in  each  station.  The  board  of  directors  of  these  small 
television  stations  had  very  little  to  do  with  that  sort  of 
thing.  Those  managers  were  protecting  what  they  saw  as  their 
authority,  which  Ralph  Rogers  had  determined  they  should  give 
up,  because  he  felt  that  only  a  lay  board  could  operate  this 
kind  of  a  thing  correctly,  and  be  responsive. 

Morris:       Were  there  other  people  besides  Mr.  Rogers  who  were  particularly 
important  in  moving  some  of  these  ideas  ahead? 

Charles:      Well,  I  have  to  say  that  he  was  the  leader.  Then  a  number  of  people 
from  around  the  country  began  to  see  the  wisdom  of  what  he  wanted 
to  do  and  supported  it. 

Morris:       That  must  have  been  quite  a  load  to  carry  on  top  of  being 
chairman  of  the  local  KQED  board. 

Charles:      Oh,  I  don't  think  so.   It  was  a  refreshing  change.  Because  I  was 
not  carrying  the  load  back  there}  Ralph  was.  I  need  to  say,  of 
course,  I  had  to  be  responsible  for  what  I  agreed  to,  but  when 
you're  the  leader  of  something,  you  have  to  have  the  creative 
imagination  to  make  it  go.  And  sometimes  it's  rather  pleasant 
just  to  be  a  follower,  if  you  can. 


276 


Morris:       Yes,  I  would  think  so,  and  watch  somebody  else  in  action. 
Charles:      Right. 

Morris:       Did  you  learn  some  things  from  Mr.  Rogers  about  moving  a  group 
towards  consensus? 

Charles:      Yes,  of  course.   I  mean  to  say,  I  think  we  were  all  equally 

informed  on  that  because  certainly  many  of  the  people  there  had 
had  a  great  deal  of  experience  in  voluntary  organizations. 
Ralph  had  not,  actually,  because  he'd  come  out  of  the  business 
world.   But  he  had  darned  good  common  sense,  and  he  knew  how  to 
get  things  done.  He  and  the  managers  had  some  knock-down,  drag- 
out  fights  that  really  were  exhilarating.  He  seemed  to  have  a 
great  deal  of  money,  and  he  would  pay  for  these  expensive  places 
where  we  went.  He  didn't  charge  it  to  anybody,  except  occasionally 
the  organization  would  pay,  but  mostly  he  would.  When  I  got  down 
to  Palm  Beach,  I  found  out  the  room  was  a  hundred  dollars  a  day 
that  I'd  been  assigned  to,  and  I  said,  "I  can't  possibly  stand 
that."  "Oh,  Mr.  Rogers'll  take  care  of  it,"  and  I  believe  he 
did,  too.  At  least,  I  didn't. 

Morris:       He  was  retired  at  that  point? 

Charles:      Yes,  retired  from  other  businesses.  Now  he's — his  business  is 
called  Texas  Industries,  and  just  exactly  what  that  is,  I  don't 
know. 

•f 

Morris:       I'm  interested  as  to  whether  he  was  a  lawyer  by  training, 
perhaps. 

Charles:      No,  not  a  bit,  no.   I  don't  think  lawyers  are  particularly 

good  at  this  sort  of  thing,  this  community  organization  thing. 
I  think  that  sometimes  they  get  a  little  too  technical.   I  have 
a  friend  who  said  to  me,  "I'm  going  to  be  a  lawyer,"  she'd  say, 
"next  time  I  get  a  chance.  Why,"  she  said,  "You  just  can't  just 
ask  a  lawyer  a  question.  When  you  ask  him,  he  has  to  go  look  up 
everything  around  it." 

Morris:       That's  a  marvelous  comment. 

Charles:      And  I  really  thought  it  was,  too,  because  no  lawyer  worth  his  salt 
is  going  to  take  a  question  that  some  female  client  asks  him  and 
take  it  as  the  whole  story.  He  has  to  find  out  what  brought  it 
to  that  point — what  the  facts  are  and  so  forth. 

Morris:       I  asked  because  it  sometimes  seems  that  in  community  organizations, 
amongst  the  men,  it's  more  likely  to  be  lawyers. 


Morris : 
Charles : 

Morris: 
Charles: 


277 


There  are  more  lawyers.  Yes,  there  are.   It's  true. 
And  I  wondered  why  that  might  be. 

Well,  I  don't  know.  I  think  they  may  enjoy  it,  you  know.  But  I 
don't  think  it's  because  they  bring  the  most  expertise  to  it.  You 
occasionally  need  a  lawyer's  advice  in  these  organizations.   I 
remember  asking  one  lawyer — a  young  lawyer — for  some  advice  in 
some  organization.  Some  legal  advice.  I  can't  remember  what  the 
legal  problem  was,  but  he  said  to  me,  "Now  Mrs.  Charles,"  he  said, 
"I  have  to  tell  you  that  this  is  not  being  organized  properly." 

And  I  said,  "Well,  I  have  to  tell  you  that  that's  not  what 
I'm  going  to  discuss  with  you.   I  will  ask  you  any  legal  questions 
that  I  need  to,  but  I  don't  expect  you  to  tell  me  how  to  run 
things.   I've  been  doing  it  for  too  many  years." 

And  how  did  that  go  down? 

Well,  he  didn't  like  it  very  much,  but  I  was  his  client,  and  he 
couldn't  do  much  about  that — quite  a  bit  older  than  he,  too. 
[Laughs ] 

Now,  are  there  some  other  aspects  of  the  national  public 
broadcasting  experience  that  you  found  particularly  helpful 
or  interesting? 

I  think  it  was  terribly  exciting.  You  see,  what  Ralph  perceived 
was  also  the  necessity  for  having  an  organization  in  which  the 
stations  had  a  voice,  I  mentioned  that  before.  They  hadn't 
had  before,  because  the  managers  from  the  old  tradition  were 
the  ones  who  would  have  any  voice,  speak  for  the  station. 
And  Ralph  said,  "This  is  not  right.   I  don't  care  what  the 
manager  thinks." 

Well,  you  can  imagine  the  managers  didn't  take  to  that 
very  well.   "I  want  to  know  what  the  board  of  directors  thinks." 
Well,  half  the  time,  the  manager  would  never  have  heard  of  the 
problem. 


278 


15.  CONCLUDING  THOUGHTS  ON  COMMUNITY  SERVICE 
[Interview  13:   30  March  1978]## 

San  Francisco  Housing  Authority;  Minority  Participation 

Morris:       I  have  a  few  windup  questions. 
Charles:      All  right,  go  ahead. 

Morris:       A  few  things  that  we've  missed  on  the  way,  and  then  there  are  a 
couple  of  sort  of  general  issues  that  I  thought  you  might  like 
to  take  a  look  at. 

Charles:      All  right. 

Morris:       We  talked  earlier  about  your  work  on  the  Housing  Authority  [see 

chapter  11],  and  I  wondered  in  general  whether  that  was  a  political 
appointment,  and  if  you  felt  that  politics  was  a  different  kind  of 
volunteer  work. 

Charles:      Yes.  But  I  thought  it  was  volunteer  work  anyway.   I  don't  say  it's 
necessarily  a  different  kind.   I'd  say  that  anything  that  you  do 
for  the  community  is  volunteer  work  if  you're  not  paid  for  it. 
More  than  our  toll  collectors  can  say.* 

In  any  case,  my  appointment  was  one  of  those  kind  of  freakish 
things — a  friend  of  mine  called  me  up  one  day  and  asked  me — I  can't 
remember  how  I  knew  him  before  he  was  on  the  Housing  Authority  with 


Reference  to  the  then-current  news  reports  that  portions  of 
parking  meter  collections  were  being  appropriated  by  city 
employees . 


279 


Charles:      me.  He's  a  very  nice  man,  of  whom  I'm  extremely  fond. 
Morris :       His  name? 

Charles:      His  name  is  Stephen  Walter — spell  it  with  a  "p-h."  Really  one  of 
those  splendid  men  that  make  you  think  of  Dan  Koshland  and  Walter 
Haas  when  they  were  young,  you  know.  He's  very  generous  and  kind 
and  nice  too,  and  interested  in  the  community,  which  is  one  thing 
we  have  to  stress  in  trying  to  get  volunteer  work  back  into  being 
a  more  popular  occupation;  that  is  to  remember  how  much  the  men 
used  to  do,  in  their  constant  concern  about  the  city.   I'm  talking 
now  about  Charlie  Elkus,  for  instance,  who  was  the  president  of  the 
Rosenberg  Foundation  the  whole  time  I  was  on  it.  He  was  a  man  who 
devoted  a  great  deal  of  his  time  to  problems  in  city  government  and 
kept  an  eye  on  what  was  going  on  down  there.  I  don't  think  we 
really  have  any  men  doing  just  that  thing  right  now  in  a  voluntary 
citizen  way. 

Morris:       Is  this  because  men  don't  take  the  kind  of  interest  they  used  to? 

Charles:      Well,  yes,  I  think  there's  some  of  that,  and  I  think  the  League 
of  Women  Voters  doesn't  do  that  kind  of  a  job  any  more.  The 
League  was  on  the  job  all  the  time,  throughout  city  hall.  But 
what  with  the  complexity  of  their  program,  now  that  they've  got 
every  League  working  on  national  issues  and  state  issues,  the  city 
government,  I  think,  gets  left  behind  a  little  bit.   I  think  we 
ought  to  try  to  get  out  and  try  to  stimulate  the  League  to  urging 
their  local  branches  to  do  more  in  the  city  government.  You  know, 
just  going  and  observing  doesn't  mean  a  thing.  You  can  just  go 
there  and  sit  for  months,  if  you  don't  know  enough  about  it  to 
understand  what's  going  on  or  isn't  going  on,  you  know. 

But  anyway,  this  nice  Mr.  Walter  called  me  up  one  day.   (They 
were  neighbors,  actually.   I  think  maybe  in  some  neighborhood 
thing  we  met.)  And  he  said  to  me,  "I've  been  asked  by  the 
mayor" — the  mayor  was  Jack  Shelley,  who's  a  Democrat — "if  you 
would  consider  going  on  the  Housing  Authority." 

"Well,"  I  said,  "of  course  I'm  always  interested  in  doing 
something  for  the  community."  Even  though  I  don't  have  much 
background  in  housing,  I  have  a  feeling  that  those  are  the  things 
you  can  learn  fast  if  you  go  on  something  like  that. 

Morris:       When  you  were  on  the  Housing  Authority,  was  that  a  time  when  the 
minority  community  was  beginning  to  be  active? 

Charles:      Oh,  very.  Yes.  And  they  very  much  wanted  a  representative  on  the 
Housing  Authority  board,  you  know — "The  Authority,"  so  to  speak. 
I  thought  they  should  have  one  if  they  wanted  one.  You  have  to 


280 


Charles:      be  prepared  to  take  a  chance  on  inexperience — because  how  are 
people  going  to  learn,  if  they  can't  do  these  things? 

Then  there  was  one  sort  of  a  problem  that  seemed  to  arise, 
which  was  since  half  our  housing  is  for  the  aging,  should  we  use 
a  young  person  or  an  older  person?  Well,  the  young  people  were 
the  ones  that  were  agitating  for  it,  although  occasionally  some  of 
the  old  people  would  come  down  and  present  their  case  to  us.  They 
were  absolutely  determined  never  to  be  in  a  building  with  young 
children.  They  were  bothered  by  them  terribly.   So  that  you  really 
could  not  mix  them  up. 

In  the  first  days  of  the  Housing  Authority,  they  were  really 
quite  segregated,  without  anybody  calling  it  that  or  thinking  of 
that  particularly.   They'd  build  a  big  place  right  over  here  in 
Chinatown,  for  Chinese,  and  it's  been  exclusively  Chinese  because 
the  Chinese  don't  wish  anybody  else  but  themselves  there. 

That  reminds  me  to  tell  you  an  anecdote,  which  I  have  always 
enjoyed  tremendously,  about  Mayor  Alioto.   This  comes  later.  He 
reappointed  me  to  the  Housing  Authority;  my  term  expired  after 
he  was  elected.   I  think  it  was  four  years,  or  something.   And 
he  followed  Shelley  as  mayor.  We  were  dedicating  a  new  building. 
You  know  the  tremendous  amounts  of  money  that  are  spent  on  these 
housing  units  is  incredible.  They  were  built  according  to  the 
same  pattern  all  over  the  country — these  mammoth  buildings  that 
cost  several  million  dollars  apiece. 

So  we  were  dedicating  this  building,  and  the  mayor  was  to  be 
there.   I  think  perhaps  I  was  chairman  of  the  Housing  Authority  at 
that  time,  so  I  was  there  too.  And  Alioto  started  making  his 
speech.  You  know,  he  has  a  very  gracious  way  with  him,  and  a  very 
pleasing  way,  and  he  said  a  few  words.  Then  he  turned  and  he  said, 
"This  young  man  standing  here" — a  rather  plump  young  Chinese  was 
standing  next  to  him — he  said,  "is  my  interpreter.  He's  going  to 
come  in  and  repeat  what  I  say  in  Chinese."  And  then  he  said  to 
the  interpreter  and  the  audience,  "I  wanted  to  tell  you  something 
about  my  father.  When  he  came  here  to  the  United  States,  he 
wanted  to  be  naturalized.   So  when  they  were  asking  him  a  few 
questions,  everything  he  said  was  being  interpreted.   He  didn't 
speak  English.   They  asked  him,  'Who  is  the  President  of  the 
United  States?'  And  he  said,  'A. P.  Giannini.1 

"But  the  interpreter  turned  to  the  man  who  was  examining  and 
said,  'He  says   Calvin  Coolidge,'   so  it  worked  out  fine." 
[Laughs]  So  the  mayor  said  to  the  young  interpreter,  "I  hope 
you'll  treat  me  as  well  when  I'm  speaking,"  which  was  really 
very  witty  and  nice,  you  know. 


281 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 


Charles ; 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris: 


That's  lovely.,  So  you  did  succeed  in  having  some  new  kinds  of 
people  appointed  to  the  Housing  Authority? 

Yes,  indeed  we  did.   It  didn't  cause  any  great  ruckus  because  it 

was  the  thing  to  do  then.  That  was  quite  a  few  years  later.   I  can't 

tell  you  the  year  I  was  appointed.  It's  terrible. 

I  was  thinking  about  your  comment  that  you  need  to  take  a  chance  on 
inexperienced  people  on  a  board. 

Yes,  right.  You  know,  it's  a  very  hard  sequence  of  power  that 
comes  into  the  Housing  Authority.   It's  really  a  state  agency, 
wherever  it  is,  and  then  the  mayor  actually  makes  the  local 
appointments,  but  the  state  government  is  very  interested  in 
what  goes  on.  So  we  recommended  strongly  to  the  mayor  that  the  next 
appointment  be  given  to  a  young  woman  who  had  formed  the  tenants' 
association,  and  also  to  an  older  person,  and  those  appointments 
were  made.   I  had  suggested  that  the  Housing  Authority  be  enlarged 
from  five  persons  to  seven  persons,  thereby  making  room  for  these 
two  people  and  leaving  five  of  the  usual  kind  of  appointees  who  had 
had  some  experience  in  city  government  and  so  forth. 

Were  they  added? 

That's  what  we  added,  two  other  places.   So  this  young  black  lady — 
very  young,  with  small  children — was  appointed,  and  then  there  was 
a  very  old  man — a  very  elderly  man,  I  should  say.   I  don't  think 
I  can  afford  to  say  anybody's  old  any  more  [laughs] — to  represent 
the  elderly  tenants,  and  that  seemed  to  work  out  pretty  well. 
They  really  did  well  on  this  commission.   They  tried  to  be 
reasonable,  and  brought  us  questions  that  we  might  not  have 
thought  of. 

One  little  situation  that  I  really  always  enjoyed  was  we  had 
tenants  coming  in  frequently  to — maybe  I've  told  you  this 
anecdote  before — frequently  to  ask  for  things.   So  one  time  we 
went  into  the  meeting  and  here  was  a  whole  group  of  people  waiting 
as  we  came  through,  to  go  in  up  to  the  front  where  we  sat.   We  had 
a  room  about  the  size  of  this  living  room.  It  was  ridiculous 
because  of  the  hundreds  of  tenants  who  wanted  to  come  see  what  we 
were  doing.  There  was  no  place  for  them  to  sit.   They  didn't  need 
to  come  more  than  once  to  find  out  that  it  was  very  uncomfortable. 
So  we  kept  trying  to  find  another  place  to  go,  but  there  didn't 
seem  to  be  any.  The  school  board,  you  know,  finally  moved  themselves 
out  of  their  offices,  just  a  few  years  ago,  into  one  of  the  schools 
where  they  had  an  auditorium  where  the  audience  could  be  seated. 

Really  get  more  participation  from  the — ? 


282 


Charles:      Yes.  Anyway,  there  was  a  crowd  of  people  outside.   So  when  we 
got  in  and  I  called  the  meeting  to  order,  I  called  for  any 
questions  from  the  floor  before  we  started  on  the  business  of 
the  meeting.  And  a  young  man — young  colored  man — said  he  had  some 
business  he  wanted  to  talk  to  us  about.   So  then  he  opened  the  door 
of  the  meeting  room  and  beckoned,  and  in  came  a  little  parade  of 
people,  who  were  all  dressed  for  the  occasion — something  special. 
It  was  like  casting  a  theatrical  show.  There  was  an  old  lady  in 
a  wheelchair,  very  old,  and  a  white  lady  who  was  obviously  in  her 
dotage.   She  was  sort  of  nodding  and  smiling  around,  enjoying 
every  minute  of  it.  And  she  had  things  draped  all  over  the 
chair,  among  them  a  saucepan  and — I  don't  remember  all  the  stuff 
that  was  draped  on  that  chair.  And  there  was  a  little  boy  who 
was  dressed  in  his  very  best,  wheeling  her.  You  could  see  he'd 
dressed  for  the  occasion  too. 

So  when  this  young  man  got  in  there,  he  said,  "I  want  to 
complain  about  our  rooms  in  this  building  where  we  are.  We  don't 
like  them,  and  I  brought  this  dear  old  lady  here  to  show  you  that 
she's  there  all  alone.  We  all  take  care  of  her,"  he  said.   "She's 
got  all  these  things  she's  hung  about  her  chair.  Now,"  he  said, 
"this  saucepan  is  her  potty." 

Morris:       Oh,  dear. 

Charles:      Well,  it  was  really  a  very  entertaining  kind  of  a  thing,  and  he  had 
everything  planned  so  that  we  would  see  what  he  was  talking  about. 
It  was  very  well  done. 

One  thing  that's  a  pleasure — there  were  always  a  roomful  of 
blacks  in  our  little  meeting  room,  and  they  have  a  marvelous  sense 
of  humor,  so  we  had  lots  of  good  laughs  together,  you  know.  They 
saw  how  funny  this  was  just  as  well  as  the  commissioners  did. 


Politics  and  Pressure  Groups 


Morris:       There  was  one  point  I  came  across  in  my  notes.  You  gave  some  help 
to  the  women's  division  of  the  Republican  Central  Committee,  a  lady 
named  Grace  McDuff,  who  still  remembers  your  assistance. 

Charles:      Oh,  yes.  Well,  not  very  much.  You  know,  I  have  never  been  very 

active  in  politics.   I  may  have  then.   I  don't  know  what  Grace  may 
be  talking  about  this  time.  But  I  would  do  little  things  they  asked 
me  to  do,  like  using  my  house  for  a  meeting,  if  that's  what  they 
wanted  to  do,  and  so  forth.  But  partisan  politics  is  really  not 
for  me.   I  mean,  we  need  people  to  work  in  it,  but  I  enjoy  being 


283 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles : 

Morris: 

Charles: 

Morris: 

Charles: 


freer  than  that  in  what  I  can  do  around  the  community.  Because  if 
you're  too  identified  with  a  party — for  instance,  I'm  sure  the 
reason  that  I  was  appointed  to  the  Housing  Authority  is  that 
they  didn't  want  to  put  any  more  Democrats  on;  because  of  the 
mayor's  party  being  Democratic,  they  would  try  to  balance  the 
commission.  So  then  they  had  to  investigate  whether  I  was  a 
Republican  or  not,  or  what  I  was,  because  I'm  not  known  as  a 
Republican.  Well,  I  think  everybody  knows  I'm  a  Republican  if 
you  ask  them,  but  being  a  Republican  is  not  my  life. 

Your  concern  is  more  the  overall  functioning  of  the  community. 

Yes.   I  guess  the  League  of  Women  Voters'  policies  of 
nonpartisanship  indoctrinated  me  too  early,  and  I  really  have 
always  felt  better  when  I  could  cling  to  that  policy,  to  do  what 
I  believed  not  because  of  any  party  situation,  but  because  it  was 
what  I  believed  should  be  done. 


Do  you  think  there's  been  any  kind  of  change  over  the  years,  that 
people  tend  to  be  more  involved  in  "a  cause,"  in  terms  of  their 
view  of  community  service? 


Well,  I  think  a  great  many  more  people  take  part  in  trying  to  exert 
community  pressure.   In  fact,  I  think  there's  too  much  of  that,  now. 
Because  I  think  that  it's  not  always  rational,  you  know,  and  it's 
hard  for  people  who  have  to  make  the  decisions  to  sort  out  what  the 
rational  action  would  be  and  how  much  of  what  was  being  complained 
about  is  irrational. 

In  volunteer  organizations,  as  well  as  in  boards  and  commissions? 

Oh,  I  don't  feel  that.  The  volunteer  organizations,  I  think,  are 
still  very  much  wedded  to  their  work,  and  not  concerned  about 
playing  partisan  roles. 

I  was  thinking  of  it  in  the  sense  of  advocating  a  particular  cause. 
When  we  were  talking  about  KQED,  you  expressed  some  concern  about 
people  coming  into  KQED's  board — 

Exactly. 

— with  a  particular  ax  to  grind,  as  it  were. 

Well,  perhaps  I  didn't  express  that  correctly,  because  I  don't 
object  to  that,  but  I  do  object  to  not  being  notified  of  what  it 
is  and  giving  a  chance — one  of  my  policies  in  dealing  with  city 
government  has  always  been  that  before  you  take  a  complaint  in 
publicly,  you  let  the  president  of  the  commission,  or  whatever 
it  is,  know  what  your  problem  is,  and  see  if  they  don't  want  to 


284 


Charles ; 


Morris : 
Charles ; 


Morris: 
Charles: 


do  something  about  it  right  there  and  then.  And  very  frequently 
that  happens,  without  a  big  to-do  about  it.   That's  why  you  are 
bothered  by  people  who  seem  to  prefer  to  do  it  in  a  publicity- 
seeking  manner,  than  as  a  way  of  correcting  whatever  may  be  the 
faults  of  the  thing  they  want  to  deal  with. 

So  that  in  general,  your  feeling  is  that  it's  better  to  try  and 
solve  a  problem  informally,  rather  than  make  it  a — 

Well,  I  think  human  nature  being  what  it  is — after  all,  these  are 
people  that  are  serving  on  these  commissions.  They  don't  like  to 
be  humiliated  in  public  either.  I  think  you  do  much  better. 

I've  been  helping  the  school  volunteers  group  to  sort  of  get 
themselves  reorganized.   I  said,  "You  know,  it  really  isn't  hard 
to  do,  if  you'll  remember  you  must  always  be  thinking  of  how  the 
other  person's  going  to  react  to  whatever  it  is  you're  going  to 
do."  It's  kind  of  a  habit  you  form.   And  I  really  started  learning 
that  when  I  was  making  a  lot  of  speeches.  Because  when  anybody 
interrupts  you  or  starts  attacking  you,  you  really  can't  afford 
to  attack  back.  You've  got  to  try  to  find  out  what  it  is  that  is 
bothering  them.   So  I've  always  tried  to  be  very  considerate  of 
people  who — without  being  angry.  Fortunately  I  don't  have  a 
low  boiling  point.   I  don't  have  to  fight  off  being  angry.   I 
can  move  slowly  if  I  want  to,  without  my  emotions  getting  in  the 
way. 

Is  that  something  you  were  born  with,  or  is  that  something  that 
you've  learned  over  the  years? 

No,  I  think  I've  learned  that  over  the  years.  Being  brought  up 
in  a  large  family  is  one  good  way  to  learn  that,  you  know.  I 
remember  when  I  was  young,  I  used  to  get  awfully  angry  with  one 
of  my  siblings — either  one  of  my  two  sisters  or  my  little  brother — 
and  then  I  would  say  to  myself,  "Now,  I  hope  I  can  stay  angry 
long  enough  to  remember  that  I'm  not  speaking  to  them  for  three 
days,"  or  something.   But  I  never  could.  And  I  suddenly  realized 
that  wasn't  really  what  I  wanted  to  do,  as  I  got  older. 

Well,  of  course,  it's  a  matter  of  emotional  temperature  as 
much  as  it  is  habit  that  way.   I  think  people  who  are  born  with 
very  touchy  emotions  can  learn  to  control  them  if  they  recognize 
the  problem.  But  of  course,  it's  easier  if  you  don't  have  to. 


285 


Volunteers'  Expectations 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 
Charles : 


Morris: 


Yes,  I  would  think  so.  One  of  the  questions  that  has  come  up,  in 
terms  of  the  volunteer  world  in  general,  is  whether  or  not  there 
have  been  changes  in  people's  expectations  of  what  their  role  will 
be  in  a  volunteer  organization. 

Oh,  I  don't  think  so.   I  went  to  the  annual  meeting  of  the  San 
Francisco  [General]  Hospital  Auxiliary,  which  is  a  very  large 
auxiliary,  and  I  was  greatly  touched  by  these  volunteers  that  we 
have  out  there — lovely  people  that  come  out.  Lots  of  older 
people  come,  and  it  brought  to  mind  the  kinds  of  things  these 
lovely  women  do.  And  in  no  place  could  it  be  more  necessary  than 
in  a  big  city  hospital,  where  many  are  friendless  and  frightened 
and  in  many  ways  not  equipped  to  help  themselves  very  much. 

In  some  of  the  newer  women's  organizations,  the  idea  is  expressed 
that  if  work  is  worth  doing,  it's  worth  being  paid  for. 

Yes.  Well,  they're  just  looking  at  it  wrong.   I've  got  to  get  to 
work  on  this  little  booklet  that  I  promised  Lynn  White  I  would  write, 
because  he  thinks  volunteer  work  is  in  danger  of  disappearing. 
I'm  not  sure  I'm  that  worried  about  it,  but  I  think  the  real  need 
it  meets  is  in  yourself,  that  women  particularly  need  to  have  a 
feeling  of  giving  to  others  in  some  way — others  who  cannot  repay 
one. 

Recently,  I've  been  to  lunch  several  times  to  one  of  the 
small  churches  around.   I  had  forgotten  all  that  side  of  life, 
which  I  knew  much  about  when  I  was  growing  up  in  a  small  town,  but 
these  churches,  it's  very  sweet.  They  have  their  women's  guild 
to  serve  a  lunch  if  there's  going  to  be  a  meeting  over  the  noon 
hour  that  people  should  attend,  and  to  me,  that's  just  as  much 
volunteer  work — though  they  may  be  serving  their  own  congregation. 
You're  doing  for  somebody  who  is  not  going  to  be  able  to  repay 
you  in  money  at  all. 

Where  do  you  think  this  new  idea  came  from? 

Oh,  I  think  it's  one  of  the  militant  feminist  ideas.  These  are 
going  to  have  to  sort  themselves  for  the  next  years,  as  to  the  ones 
that  don't  need  to  be  emphasized  so  much.  Because  volunteer  work, 
such  as  I  think  of  it,  and  the  men,  too,  who  have  paid  attention 
to  city  hall  and  one  thing  and  another — and  they  don't  do  it  for 
money  or  any  prestige  that  would  accrue,  either. 

Although  the  idea  is  suggested  sometimes  that  they  do  it  because 
it's  good  for  business. 


286 


Charles:      No,  no.  Never.  Not  the  men  I  have  known,  the  grand  men  who 

somewhat  preceded  me;  there 're  not  so  many  of  them  in  my  generation 
now  that 're  doing  that  sort  of  thing. 

Morris:       Why  not,  do  you  suppose? 

Charles:      Well,  I  don't  know.   I  think  there's  always  a  kind  of  change  in 
the  generations.   I  think  that  occasionally  the  next  generation 
retreats  back  into  private  life  just  as  a  kind  of  alternative  to 
what  they  grew  up  with. 

Morris:       And  then  their  sons  and  daughters  will  go  out  again? 

Charles:      Will  go  out  again.   It's  just  the  same  with  the  people  who  made 

so  much  money  in  the  early  days  of  San  Francisco.  Not  infrequently, 
their  sons  and  daughters  are  not  money-makers  or  carrying  on  in 
the  same  enterprises.   But  then  the  next  generation  will  assume 
the  business  career. 


Government  Funding 


Morris:       How  about  the  effect  of  government  programs  and  government 
funding,  which  have  moved  into  many  of  the  things  that  used 
to  be  done  by  private  voluntary  groups? 

Charles:      Yes.   It's  not  good.   It's  very  bad.   I  think  we  ought  to  try 
to  have  a  gentleman's  agreement  with  the  government  that  they 
won't  do  that.  Because  it  was  very  disruptive  to  our  organization 
at  the  county  hospital,  when  our  director  of  volunteers  received 
word  there  would  be  eighteen  volunteers  coming  out  on  next 
Monday  to  be  put  to  work  in  the  children's  ward.  Well,  she  was 
frantic.  Because  the  jobs  have  to  be  selected  carefully,  and  you 
have  to  know  your  bounds  here  pretty  well  and  your  volunteer. 

Morris:       You  mean  a  government  agency  was  sending  her  eighteen  people 
who  were  going  to  be  volunteers. 

Charles:      Yes.  And  they  said,  "Of  course,  we  will  pay  them." 

"Well,"  Mrs.  Clifton  said,  "what  do  you  mean,  you  will  pay 
them?" 

"Well,  they're  being  paid  so  much  an  hour  for  doing  volunteer 
work."  That's  disruptive  to  our  program,  where  nobody's  paid 
anything  except  for  the  few  expenses,  and  not  everybody  wants 
that,  you  know. 


287 


Morris:       Was  this  under  the  ACTION  program? 

Charles:      It  was  a  new  program  the  federal  government  put  in. 

Morris:       There  seems  to  be  a  real  push  to  include  volunteers  in  many 
government  programs. 

Charles:      Well,  there  is.  Every  now  and  then  you  get  in  an  organization 
where  the  men  don't  know  what  the  volunteers  are  for.   Then  all 
of  a  sudden  when  they  discover  them,  the  men  think  they've  got  it 
made,  and  they  impose  so  much  on  the  volunteers  that  they  can't 
continue.  Volunteers  have  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  programmed  way, 
where  somebody  knows  what  they're  supposed  to  be  doing  and  how 
much  they  can  stand. 

Morris:       There's  a  limit  to  how  much  volunteers  can  do? 

Charles:      Oh,  there  is  indeed.  A  limit  as  to  how  much  they  can  do  and  be 
asked  to  do.  And  they  have  to  be  fitted  to  their  capabilities. 
That's  why  the  whole  movement  of  having  direction  of  volunteers 
has  been  important.  We  used  to  do  all  that  ourselves.  As  part 
of  the  organization,  we  always  had  a  person  in  charge  of  the 
volunteers — I  mean,  a  volunteer.  And  it  was  all  right,  but  they're 
not  on  the  job  all  the  time,  you  know.  Volunteers  come  and  go, 
as  they  must,  and  they  also  can't  always  tell  you  that  they'll 
be  on  the  job  at  nine  a.m.  every  day.  The  reason  they  are 
volunteers  is  because  they  can't  do  that  much.  Or  let  us 
say,  because  they  don't  choose  to  be  working  nine  to  five. 

Morris:       That  seems  to  be  another  factor  in  the  public  policy  thing. 

That  as  people  retire  younger  and  working  hours  generally  are 
less,  there  is  almost  a  sense  that  "we  have  to  find  something 
for  these  people  to  do." 

Charles:      Well,  that's  nice  for  them  to  do  it,  but  why  don't  they  put  them 

through  the  regular  volunteer  channels?  I  mean,  that  would  be  the 
best  way.   I'd  have  to  think  about  how  to  work  that  out.  I 
haven't  really  given  a  great  deal  of  thought  to  it. 


New  Ways  of  Approaching  Old  Problems 


Morris : 


A  couple  of  people  have  said,  "You  know,  what  we'd  really  like  to 
know  is  how  do  we  involve  large  numbers  of  retired  people  in 
community  activity,  volunteer  work." 


288 


Charles:      Yes.  Well,  I  was  surprised  at  my  sister,  who's  a  retired  school 
teacher  in  Stockton — a  retired  principal — she  had  never  really  had 
any  interest  in  volunteer  work.  Now  she's  working  in  a  hospital 
as  a  volunteer  and  enjoying  every  minute  of  it.   It's  a  new  thing 
for  her  entirely.  But  she  had  not  been  organized  in  a  large 
group.   She  went  and  got  the  job  herself. 

Morris:       Good  for  her.  Just  on  her  own  initiative? 
Charles:      Through  the  Volunteer  Bureau,  I  imagine. 

Morris:       Do  you  suppose  there's  a  limit  to  the  number  of  volunteers  that  a 
community  can  use? 

Charles:      Well,  I  think  there's  a  limit  to  a  number  that  an  organization  can 
use.   Somebody  has  to  be  aware  of  what  the  jobs  are  to  be  done. 
The  volunteers  resent  terribly  make-work.  You  know,  they  recog 
nize  it  for  "busy  work."  They  don't  get  taken  in  at  all. 

Arlene  Daniels  was  over  here  the  other  day,  asking  me  to 
give  a  little  thought  to  whether  I  thought  that  volunteers  could 
build  up  a  vita,  you  might  say,  or  experience  that  would  qualify 
them  for  something  else,  should  they  ever  need  to  have  it. 
Arlene  is  quite  wedded  to  the  idea  that  volunteer  work  prepares 
people  to  go  to  work,  but  that's  not  very  true,  you  know.   If 
that's  why  they're  doing  volunteer  work,  they're  foolish  to  do 
that. 

Morris:       What  about  younger  people? 

Charles:      Well,  yes,  I  think  young  people  may  get  a  taste  for — 

Morris:       The  career  exploration  kind  of  thing? 

Charles:      Right.   But  I  think  people  should  be  doing  volunteer  work  because 
they  want  to  contribute  something,  and  of  course  they  want  to  do 
something  for  themselves.  Anyway,  Arlene  feels  their  honors  ought 
to  add  up  what  an  academic  person's  honors  do  in  a  career 
situation. 

Morris:       They  do  when  they  get  to  your  level  and  Leslie  Luttgens's  level? 
Charles:      No.  Arlene  claims  they  don't. 
Morris:       Really? 

Charles:      Yes.  Because  there's  no  translation  between,  compared  to  someone 
applying  for  a  job  who's  got  all  kinds  of  records  in  employment. 
There's  no  real  equality  of — 


289 


Morris:       Of  the  experience,  if  a  volunteer  is  applying  for  the  same  job? 

Charles:      Of  the  value  of  the  experience.  No  attempt  to  equate  them — that's 
what  I  should  say.  So  she  was  asking  me  if  I'd  give  some  thought 
to  that.  Well,  I  will.   [Mrs.  Charles  added  the  following  comment 
when  reviewing  the  transcript]  But  I  believe  there  is  a  way  to 
provide  the  kind  of  background  Arlene  was  looking  for.  That  is, 
that  a  volunteer  could  build  a  career  record  in  case  she  ever 
needed  a  job.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  way  to  do  that  would  be  to 
suggest  to  the  agencies  that  use  volunteers  that  a  record  be  kept 
by  the  director  or  the  president  of  the  auxiliary  of  certain  key 
qualities  of  each  volunteer.   That  these  records  be  kept  carefully 
so  they  will  be  available.   [Transcript  resumes] 

Morris:       There's  two  things  there.  One  is  the  personal  growth  and 

satisfaction  and/or  contribution  to  the  community.  The  other 
is  the  community  as  an  organism;  what  makes  a  community  function 
and  how  do  the  volunteer  organizations  fit  into  that. 

Charles:      Right. 

Morris:       And  that's  something  that  interests  me.  How  can  you  tell  whether 
a  community  is  healthy  or  unhealthy  and  what  do  the  non-profit 
organizations  contribute  to  that? 

The  other  thing  that  I've  come  across  in  the  literature  is 
the  idea  of  volunteer  organizations'  own  life  span.  Are  there 
some  cases  where  volunteer  organizations  really  change  their 
goals  and — ? 

Charles:      Well,  they've  got  to  fill  a  need.   I  notice,  for  instance,  that 
the  March  of  Dimes  has  changed  its  whole  goal  now,  to  something 
else,  which  I  don't  find  very  appealing.   It  seems  to  me  what 
makes  it  questionable — is  what  they  are  trying  to  do,  just  raise 
money  for  something,  instead  of  it  being  the  thing  they  want  to 
help?  But  I  don't  know  how  successful  it's  been,  doing  that. 
Within  a  community,  any  volunteer  group  that  is  worth  its  salt 
is  really  watching  closely,  and  they're  more  apt  to  be  able  to 
meet  unusual  needs  as  they  arise  than  a  paid  staff  is,  which  is 
often  highly  trained  to  meet  these  things. 

Morris :       That  volunteers  can  see  what  needs  to  be  done? 

Charles:      Well,  yes,  the  director  of  volunteers  or  the  president  of  the 

organization,  whoever  is  watching  all  those  things,  can  see,  and 
the  institution  itself  needs  to  be  ready  to  tell  the  director  of 
volunteers,  "We  don't  need  very  many  volunteers  in  this  area  any 
more  because  of  some  new  development  there  that  takes  highly 
trained  people,  but  we  will  need  more  somewhere  else."  And  so 


290 


Charles:      then  in  conference  with  that  person,  you  go  and  develop  that. 
[Tape  off  briefly] 

Some  people  really  aren't  clear  what  they  want  to  do  with 
their  volunteers.  One  person  came  to  see  me  about  an  auxiliary 
for  an  organization  that  he  was  a  director  of,  and  the  naivete 
of  some  men  about  things  they  can  get  away  with  and  can't  with 
people  was  really  astonishing.   I  shouldn't  limit  that  to  men 
because  it's  true  with  women,  too.  But  upon  cross-questioning 
him,  I  found  he  already  had  an  auxiliary  at  his  place,  and  he's 
starting  another  one  on  top  of  it  because  they  aren't  doing  quite 
what  he  thinks  needs  to  be  done.   I  don't  think  he  can  get  away 
with  it.   "Well,"  I  said,  "you  can  try  it."  I  said,  "If  you  have 
never  been  in  the  middle  of  a  ladies'  fight,  you  haven't 
experienced — " 

Morris:       [Laughs]  A  real  battle. 

Charles:      Oh,  yes.  Even  if  they  aren't  doing  everything  that  he  wants, 

when  somebody  sees  an  interloper  coming  in,  they're  not  going  to 
stand  for  that,  you  know. 

Morris:       You  mention  in  your  thoughts  on  the  establishment  of  successful 

auxiliaries  that  in  your  experience,  one  auxiliary  body  is  enough. 

Charles:      But  now  I  should  point  out  that  Children's  Hospital  in 

San  Francisco  has  about  four  or  five  auxiliaries,  and  they  seem 
to  get  along  all  right.   It's  historical,  you  know.   They  know 
what  their  different  fields  of  service  are. 

Morris:       In  some  cases  it  seems  as  if  they  were  set  up  almost  as  a 
friendly  rivalry. 

Charles:      You  mean  in  a  competitive  way? 

Morris:       Yes.   If  there's  a  group  of  separate  fund-raising  auxiliaries. 

Charles:      Oh,  well,  that  might  be.  When  it's  fund-raising,  that's  something 
quite  different  from  the  service  work  you  do.   It's  easy  to  measure, 
you  know. 

Morris:       It  sounds  as  if  it  might  be  a  kind  of  benchmark  of  volunteer  work — 
that  the  first  thing  to  do  is  to  determine  what  the  organization 
wants  to  do  and  what  the  different  individuals  involved  can  do. 

Charles:  Absolutely.  The  first  thing  to  do  is  for  the  body  that's  going 
to  have  an  auxiliary  to  decide  what  they  want  the  volunteers  to 
do.  It's  probably  one  of  the  few  times  they'll  have  a  chance  to 


291 


Charles:      do  that  easily.  They  need  to  give  a  lot  of  thought  to  that  before 
they  start  it.  Decide  on  the  limitations,  and  say  to  them,  "Now, 
we'd  like  you  to  come  in  here  and  give  us  some  assistance  in  the 

office" or  if  it's  in  a  hospital,  in  the  gift  shop,  or  "start  a 

gift  shop  for  us."  But  the  limitation  is  very  important.  Because 
volunteers  get  in  the  nurses'  hair  and  generally  you  just  have  lots 
of  trouble,  big  trouble. 

Morris:       In  your  own  experiences,  have  what  you  wanted  to  do  and  what  you 
saw  as  the  task  for  yourself  personally — have  they  changed  over 
the  years?  What  it  was  that  interested  you  and  you  yourself 
wanted  to  do? 

Charles :      In  doing  volunteer  work? 
Morris:       Right. 

Charles:      No,  I  think  that's  the  wonderful  thing  about  volunteer  work.  There 
are  so  many  choices.  You  could  almost  cut  the  goods  to  suit  the 
cloth,  really.  Because  there  are  many  things  that  need  to  be 
done  in  a  community,  if  you  can  find  a  way  to  do  them. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  San  Francisco  Hospital 
Auxiliary  I  couldn't  help  but  smile  to  myself  that  Roger  Boas, 
our  new  chief  administrative  officer,  was  there.  Because  the 
hospitals  in  the  city  fall  under  the  administrative  officer's 
side,  you  know.  We  have  a  dual  government,  with  the  mayor  doing 
one  thing,  doing  the  political  end  of  it,  and  the  administrative 
officer  doing  the  management  end,  so  to  speak.   It's  really  like 
a  city  manager  type. 

When  we  tried  to  start  this  auxiliary  at  county  hospital, 
Mr.  Thomas  Brooks  was  the  CAO  at  that  time,  and  a  man  I  was  very 
fond  of — because  he  was  a  very  earnest,  dedicated  man — and  he 
just  didn't  want  any  women  "fooling  around"  his  hospitals,  he  said. 
So  we  didn't  argue  with  him  very  long.  We  just  said,  "You  talk 
to  the  personnel  out  there,  and  if  you  find  a  place  where  we  can 
do  a  little  work,  let  us  know,  and  we'll  do  a  little  bit  there 
and  then  move  out  from  there  if  we  can  be  useful." 

You  should  see  the  adulation  the  city  government  gives  us 
now.   Because  it  saves  them  a  fortune,  you  know,  having  volunteers 
to  do  a  great  many  things,  such  as  run  an  information  desk  at  the 
door.  Oh,  we  had  some  interesting  times.  Really,  it's  fun  to  look 
back  on  it.  One  time,  on  the  board  of  the  auxiliary  there,  I  was 
trying  to  get  it  to  have  a  little  change  in  complexion.  I  used 
ex-politicians  and  everybody  I  could  think  of.   I  got  Harold  Dobbs 
to  go  on. 


292 


Morris: 
Charles ; 

Morris : 
Charles: 


Morris : 
Charles ; 

Morris: 
Charles 


Morris: 


Charles: 


Really?  A  member  of  the  board  of  supervisors? 

He  really  wanted  to  be  mayor  at  one  time,  and  for  quite  a  while, 
as  a  matter  of  fact. 

Yes,  I  have  heard  that. 

It  was  he  who  got  us  through  one  very  difficult  problem  that  we 
came  across.   Somebody  said  one  day,  "Where's  the  money  go  from 
the  vending  machines?"  The  hospital  throughout  is  filled  with 
vending  machines . 

And  they  said,  "Well,  it  goes  to  the  blind?"  And  we  said, 
"What  blind?"  Well,  then  there  was  much  doubt  about  it,  and  it's 
really  kind  of  a  strange  thing.  Nobody  knew  exactly.  There's 
some  organization  in  Sacramento  that  they  pay  over  their  profits 
to.  The  vending  people  evidently  have  their  own  rules  about  giving 
the  profits  to  some  charitable  organization,  and  we  wanted  them 
for  the  auxiliary.  We  said,  "We  have  lots  of  sympathy  with  the 
blind,  but  we'll  know  what  the  money  does  if  we  get  it  here." 
So  we  had  to  get  an  ordinance  through  city  hall,  and  Harold  Dobbs 
knew  what  the  steps  were  to  do  that,  and  it  was  a  great  help  to 
us. 

I  should  say  so.  How  did  he  feel  about  coming  on  something  like 
a  hospital  auxiliary? 

Oh,  he  loved  it.  He  was  pleased  to  get  to  know  a  lot  more  about 
the  city,  and  being  a  politician,  he  was  widening  his  acquaintances 
all  the  time. 

I  should  say.   So  he  was  kind  of  building  his  constituency? 

Well,  I  don't  think  he  was  building  anything,  no — at  least,  it 

wasn't  that  deliberate,  and  I  would  never  say  that.  But  it  was 

just  a  thing  that  happens.  The  more  different  kinds  of  things 
you  do,  the  more  people  know  you,  know  who  you  are. 

Okay.  What  are  the  things  that  we  have  not  talked  about  that  you 
think  are  important  to  a  volunteer  as  an  individual  and  to  the 
functioning  of  volunteer  organizations? 

Well,  I  used  to  say  in  some  of  my  speeches,  "We  did  not  graduate 
from  college  to  gain  freedom  from  thinking."  You've  really  got 
to  think  about  your  daily  life  if  you're  going  to  have  a  happy 
life,  and  plan  it  every  day,  if  you  could,  in  the  mornings,  what 
it  is  that  you're  going  to  be  doing  today  step-by-step.   Then 
it  means  you  avoid  that  annoying  thing  of  going  right  past  a 
place  where  you  need  to  do  an  errand  on  your  way  somewhere  else. 


293 


Charles:      But  if  you've  thought  about  that,  you  won't  do  that. 

And  then  I  think  every  problem  lends  itself  to  thought  by 
yourself,  if  you  can  just  sit  and  think  for  a  while  what  you're 
going  to  do  about  some  human  problem  that  comes  up,  or  a  human 
relations  problem  in  the  organization. 

Teilhard  de  Chardin  would  say  that  all  it  needs  is  the 
addition  of  a  little  love,  and  that's  really  what  you  do,  I 
think,  when  you  think  like  that,  is  try  to  apply  your 
consideration — if  you  don't  want  to  call  it  love — for  human 
beings  as  to  what  a  problem  may  really  be.   It  may  not  be  the 
ill  will  of  anybody  or  ill  doing  of  anything  else. 

Morris:       It  sometimes  seems  as  if  in  recent  years  three  or  four  new 
organizations  have  sprung  up  to  do  the  kinds  of  things  that 
older  organizations  thought  they  were  already  doing.   Is  that 
a  valid  observation? 

Charles:      I  think  so.   If  they  don't  move  with  the  times,  they're  going  to 
be  superseded.  There's  no  doubt  about  it. 

Morris:       How  about  some  of  the  lively  young  organizations  that — a  lot  of 
them  went  through  the  Rosenberg  Foundation  getting  started.   I'm 
thinking  of  self-help  organizations,  neighborhood  organizations. 

Charles:      Yes.  Well,  those  are  new  ways  of  approaching  old  problems,  which 
is  what  foundations  are  for.  And  they  should  be — that  should 
happen.   Something  that  is  acceptable  to  the  young  people.  I'm 
very  admiring  of  these  young  people. 

I've  been  helping  for  a  couple  of  years  a  young  woman  who — 
I  think  I  may  have  mentioned  before — who  wanted  to  do  something 
about  the  children  in  the  juvenile  courts.   She  believed  they 
didn't  have  an  opportunity  to  learn  any  of  the  arts,  which  she 
thought  would  be  particularly  beneficial  to  them.   So  we  talked 
it  over.   She  formed  herself  a  little  board,  and  she  did  all  the 
work  herself.  She  first  accumulated  a  number  of  teachers  around 
who  would  work  with  her,  and  this  wasn't  volunteer  work.   She 
was  going  to  try  to  raise  enough  money  to  pay  enough  that  they 
could  live  on.  These  were  not  people  who  could  afford  to  do  that. 
And  she  really  has  had  a  great  success.   She's  been  able  to  get 
money  from  the  Alameda  County  supervisors — or  whatever  the  name  of 
their  governing  body  is — and  foundations  to  get  herself  started. 
She's  really  done  a  remarkable  job. 


294 


Advice  to  Volunteers 


Morris:  It  must  be  very  satisfying  to  you  to  have  people  coming  to  you 
steadily  for  advice. 

Charles:      Oh,  it  is.   I  love  it.   It's  the  thing  I  like  more  than  anything. 
I  love  to  have  people  come  and  ask  me  if  I  could  help  them.  And 
sometimes  I  can  help  them  work  out — some  problems,  you  know,  are 
very  simple  when  somebody  else  just  takes  a  look  at  it.   I  think 
I  may  have  mentioned  this  as  an  example,  but  anyway,  a  woman  from 
some  outlying  town  came  to  me,  and  she  said  they  were  having  so 
much  trouble  in  their  hospital  auxiliary.  Well,  nobody  will 
stand  for  having  five  people — it's  got  to  be  one  to  one. 

Morris:       If  it's  a  problem  you  want  to  talk  about. 

Charles:      If  it's  a  problem,  you  can't  have  them  descend  on  you  with  an 

army.   So  I  said  to  her,  "You  just  designate  one  person  to  talk 
to  your  director  of  volunteers,  and  you'll  find  every thing '11 
smooth  out.  Well,  it  just  smoothed  out  like  a  charm.   She  had 
thought  she  had  a  very  stubborn  director  of  volunteers. 

Morris:       That  reminds  me  of  a  chapter  in  a  textbook  on  personnel 

administration  in  business.  You're  supposed  to  blame  in  private 
and  praise  in  public. 

Charles:  Right.  Yes,  aid  try  to  make  your  praise  even-handed,  and  don't 
have  the  same  person  always  getting  the  praise.  Especially  if 
you  do  it  in  public. 

Morris:       Well,  I  must  say  that  your  wisdom  is  a  blessing  to  have,  and  I 

think  what  we  have  on  these  tapes  will  be  exceedingly  interesting 
and  also  helpful  to  people. 

Charles:      I  hope  so.  But  I'm  going  to  get  down  to  writing  now.   I've  got 

quite  a  lot  of  material  I've  been  putting  together  all  this  time. 

Morris:       Good. 

Charles:      In  my  little  book,  I'm  going  to  have  an  appendix  of  pointers  on 

certain  things  I  used  to  talk  about.   I  had  a  lot  of  pointers  for 
my  class  on  getting  something  under  way.  Never  seat  people  in 
rows.  People  don't  like  to  look  at  the  back  of  each  other's 
heads  if  they  can  possibly  be  seated  in  a  way  so  they'll  look 
at  each  other  in  the  face.  And  if  possible,  try  to  have  a  little 
refreshment  for  them.   It  helps  a  great  deal,  especially  when 
they're  people  who  don't  know  each  other  very  well.   Getting 


295 


Charles : 


Morris: 


Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles 


acquainted  takes  time.  That  doesn't  happen  in  just  a  minute. 
You  have  to  have  two  or  three  meetings  to  get  people  feeling 
comfortable  with  each  other. 

None  of  this  is  very  hard.   It's  mostly  just  common  sense  in 
how  you  like  to  be  treated.   I  said  to  my  girls,  "Just  think  about 
what  you'd  like  to  be  offered  to  you,  and  then  see  if  you  can't 
arrange  it  so  that  it  goes  to  the  others,  too. 

Particularly  for  people  getting  started,  I  imagine  they  feel  very 
uncertain  about  what  they're  doing,  particularly  when  they're 
trying  to  take  a  leadership  role.  Many  people  seem  to  be  very 
nervous  about  being  leaders. 

Well,  they  have  to  take  their  lumps  in  doing  that.   Sometimes 
we  make  mistakes  which  later  come  up  to  haunt  us,  or  at  least  we 
look  back  on  with  horror,  to  think  we  did  something  like  that. 
Let's  see.   I'm  trying  to  think  of  some  of  my  bad  mistakes  when 
I  was  young  and  new.   [Laughs] 


I  don ' t  imagine  there  were  any , 
I  see. 


They  don't  rise  up  to  haunt  you, 


Morris: 


No,  they  don't  stay  with  me  anyway.   I  try  to  be  sure  that  what  I 
remember  are  the  good  things  that  I  can  use  again,  because  life  is 
better  that  way.   I'm  not  a  Pollyanna,  but  I'm  sure  you  harm  your 
mind  and  your  attitudes  when  you  hold  onto  unpleasant  experiences. 

I  used  to  tell  one  anecdote  about  my  husband.   I  think  I  may 
have  told  this  before,  but  in  any  case,  one  time  in  one  of  my 
numerous  auxiliaries,  I  was  distressed  by  the  way. somebody  was 
treating  me,  one  of  my  contemporaries.  And  I  said  to  Al  when  I 
came  home — "This  has  been  a  bad  day,"  or  something  like  that. 
And  so  he  didn't  say  anything.  He  just — we  don't  spend  much 
time  derogating  people,  you  know,  and  I  thought  he  wasn't  even 
listening,  in  typical  husband  style.  Then  I  decided  I  wanted 
to  have  a  little  cocktail  party  about  a  month  later,  and  I 
said  to  Al,  "I  think  I'll  ask--"  and  I  mentioned  this  girl  and 
her  husband. 

He  said,  "But  that's  the  one  that  treated  you  so  badly." 
And  I  said,  "But  I  paid  her  back  for  that  a  long  time  ago.  I 
took  care  of  the  whole  thing."  I  decided  then  that  that's  a 
very  important  reason  why  you  shouldn't  preserve  these  little 
incidents  or  rough  times,  because  you  do  take  care  of  them  one 
way  or  another,  and  they  haunt  you  if  you've  spread  it  around 
all  over  town  what  the  problem  is. 

It's  more  important  to  keep  moving  forward. 


296 


Charles : 
Morris: 
Charles: 
Morris: 

Charles : 


Morris : 


Charles: 


Charles: 
Morris: 

Charles : 


It's  more  important  to  keep  the  organization  healthy  and  moving 
than  to  carry  a  grudge. 

I  think  that's  a  very  wise  comment.   I  hope  that  the  transcript 
of  our  talks  will  be  helpful  to  you  in  writing  your  book. 


Well,  I  hope  so  too,  for  heaven's  sake,  Gaby, 
patient  with  me. 


You've  been  very 


You've  been  very  helpful  to  Bancroft,  and  it'll  be  a  marvelous 
memoir  to  have.  As  I  say,  I  hope  it  helps  you  because  I  think 
the  book  is  going  to  be  very  important. 

Well,  I  don't  like  to  write.  You  know  I  like  to  speak.   I'm  a 
speechmaker  by  nature,  and  it's  very  hard  for  me  to  write.  You 
don't  write  the  way  you  talk.  Nobody  does,  I  believe.   I  have 
never  had  a  written  speech  in.  my  life,  you  know.   I've  always  had 
about  two  or  three  points  that  I  wanted  to  make.  You  have  to  at 
the  outset  make  your  point  and  make  it  when  you  close,  if  it's 
something  you  want  them  to  remember.   Then  I  have  a  few  little 
anecdotes  I  like  to  intersperse  because  if  they  can  laugh  about 
something,  they'll  remember  it,  too. 

Did  you  polish  up  your  speech-making  skills  when  you  were  teaching 
at  Mills? 

No.  Oh,  no.  That  was  quite  different.   Those  classes  were 
conducted  in  a  most  informal  way,  and  I  had  the  youngsters 
switch  their  chairs  around  so  we  sat  in  a  circle,  and  they 
saw  how  different  it  was  from  sitting  in  rows,  when  we  were 
carrying  on  our  classes.   I  tried  to  make  everything  an  example 
of  the  way  it  ought  to  be  done.  That's  a  good  method  of 
teaching,  I  would  think. 

Well,  I  think  so.   I  think  they  enjoyed  it. 

Well,  maybe  we  should  wind  up  now.   I  don't  want  to  keep  you  too 
late. 

Oh,  let's  do  it,  Gaby.   Thank  you. 


Transcribers:  Justan  O'Donnell,  Bob  McCargar,  Marie  Herold 
Final  Typists:   Judy  Johnson,  Leslie  Goodman-Malamuth 


-;  Appendix  II  297 

Sone  Thoughts  on  the  Establishnent  of  Successful  Auxiliaries 

Caroline  H.  Charles 
Copyright,  November,  1960 

Anticipation  is  the  secret  of  successful  orgsniration.    Human  beings  in  org 
anizations  behave  in  sone  predictable  ways.     It  is  well  to  consider  them. 

The  primary  purpose  of  an  Auxiliary  to  an  established  coxmunity  organization 
is  always  in  the  field  of  ioproved  community  relations.    Fund-raising,  and  Service 
inside  the  organization,  are  concomitant  benefits;  but  they  aust  not  be  considered 
as  primary  purposes*    This  concept  is  important,  for  it  mans  that  the  parent  org 
anization  oast  satisfy  itself  that  its  pi-ogram  is  sound,  efficiently  operated,  and 
filling  a  valid  community  need.     In  short,  that  its  house  is  in  order,  for  in  es 
tablishing  an  Auxiliary  it  is  about  to  add  a  large  family  all  at  once,  which  will 
go  out  into  the  community  giving  its  personal  and  uninhibited  reaction  to  what  is 

inside  the  organisation. 


In  the  past,  we  have  seen  what  might  be  called  fringe  Auxiliaries,  operating 
for  fund-raising  purposes  only,  recruiting  their  raaabership  by  social  exclusive- 
ness,  and  asking  no  embarrassing  questions  of  their  parent  groups*    For  many  rea 
sons  this  kind  of  organization  has  hard  sledding  today.    Commity  volunteers  are 
sophisticated  and  aware  of  responsibility  for  what  they  join.    They  are  seeking 
also  the  personal  satisfactions  of  service,  development  of  skills,  and  good 
companionship  while  meeting  a  community  need.    Lady  Bountifuls  are  passe;  the  head 
and  the  heart  are  equally  involved  and  their  questions  must  be  answered*     Through 
Auxiliary  members,  the  good  or  bad  word  about  an  organization  reaches  far  more 
people,  and  more  effectively,  than  any  amount  of  routine  publicity. 

In  giving  life  to  any  human  entity,  we  must  anticipate  the  new  self-will  that 
comes  into  being.     Parent  organizations  in  creating  Auxiliaries,  can  be  more  suc 
cessful  than  some  ordinary  parents,  in  setting  up  boundaries  of  operation,  if  they 
give  sufficient  anticipatory  thought  to  the  matter*    Auxiliaries  do  not  expect  to 
operate  in  the  field  of  policy  for  the  parent  group,  but  the  Auxiliary  body  needs 
to  know  clearly  what  these  policies  are,  and  particularly  the  limitations  of  the 
Auxiliary's  role*     Many  questions  need  to  be  asked  and  answered  inside  the  board 
and  staff  of  the  organization,  before  the  first  steps  are  taken  to  create  this 
new  entity.  » 

The  three  purposes  of  modern  Auxiliaries  are  then:     Cooicunity  Relations, 
Fund- Raising,  and  Service,     Points  for  discussion  around  these  three  areas  now 
follows 

I.    Community  Relations 

1.    These  begin  at  home.    Are  there  board  members  and  spouses,  former 
board  members  and  spouses,  other  long-time  interested  persons,  who 
need  to  be  informed  personally  of  Board's  plans?     This  should  be  by 
word  of  mouth,  which  takes  time  and  patience.     How  do  we  make  best 
use  of  these  persons?  -  establish  an  honoryvjbr  advisory  council? 


Are  tfcere  already  established  groups  who  will  want  a  role?     How  do  we 
fi£  them  in.     Be  careful,  one  Auxiliary  body  is  enough. 


298 
-2- 

Are  there  any  old  enemies?    People  like  to  be  invited  to  join  things, 
or  to  be  asked  for  advice  (you  don't  have  to  take  it),  but  this  oust 
be  done  in  advance  of  general  knowledge.    Let's  not  create  any  nev 
quarrels! 

2.     Re-statement  of  purpose  of  organization*     Is  name  properly  descrip 
tive?     Publicity  attendant  upon  establishment  of  Auxiliary  is  a  von* 
derful  opportunity  to  look  at  what  you  have  to  sell.    Professional 
help  is  often  available  en  a  volunteer  basis,  and  would  be  valuable 
now  in  developing  a  concise  and  appealing  stat extent  of  objectives* 

By  the  same  token,  areas  where  public  understanding  has  been  difficult 
in  the  past,  need  to  be  considered  and  possibly  expressed*    Auxiliary 
•embers  should  be  safe-guarded  from  enbarrassnents  that  could  have 
been  anticipated,  for  embarrassment  is  not  easily  forgiven* 


3*    Is  staff  in  sympathy  with  the  idea?    Hake  no  mistake,  an  auxiliary  in 
creases  work  of  staff,  and  this  Bust  be  faced  by  both  Board  and  staff 
or  poor  ccmranity  relations  begin  right  in  the  office*    Which  staff 
member,  which  board  member,  will  be  auxiliary  contact,  and  does  each 
understand  the  built-in  limitations  (headaches! )  which  accompany 
volunteer  participation,  as  valuable  as  it  is* 

4*    Tone  of  Auxiliary  to  be  established.     Uhom  are  you  trying  to  reach  in 
the  community?    What  kind  of  people  do  you  need  inside  Auxiliary  to 
give  it  continued  life,  gain  community  acceptance?    The  opportunity 
is  dual:     to  strengthen  present  associations,  and  to  add  new  and  im 
portant  ones,    A  nucleus  of  only  3  or  4  persons  is  needed  initially, 
but  the  moment  those  are  designated  and  go  to  work,  part  of  authority 
goes  out  of  Board* 

5*    Does  the  Board  wish  to  establish  size  and  type  of  Auxiliary?     i.e. 
whether  limited  in  membership,  or  open;  women,  or  both  men  and  women; 
amount  of  dues;  other  limitations,  some  of  which  will  be  suggested 
later*     Board  may  not  wish  to  pre-determine  some  of  these  things,  but 
once  the  Auxiliary  is  on  the  road  it  will  be  too  late.     Board  by-laws, 
in  creating  Auxiliary,  will  include  its  limitations* 

II.     Fund-Baising 

1*    This  is  a  delicate  matter*    Most  Auxiliaries  expect  to  raise  funds 
but  who  decides  purpose  to  which  funds  will  apply?     If  Board  pre 
disposes  this  matter,  a  well-defined  project  should  be  named.     Few 
Auxiliaries  will,  for  any  length  of  time,  be  willing  to  add  their 
funds  to  general  budget.    They  want  to  see  something  that  is  theirs, 
to  which  they  point  with  pride.     If  it  is  possible  to  give  them  some 
choices,  it  makes  them  happier*     Board  (in  their  by-laws)  usually 
reserve  the  right  to  review  and  accept  purposes  and  type  of  fund- 
raising  contemplated  by  Auxiliary,  and  limitations  are  stated. 


299 
-3- 

2.  Dues  are  usually  small,  and  provide  sufficient  fends  for  business 
of  Auxiliary, 

3.  Board  by-lava,,  and  Auxiliary  by-laws,  usually  provide  that  all  funds 
of  Auxiliary  revert  to  parent  organization  ia  case  of  dissolution. 

HI.  Service 

1,  It  is  difficult  to  hold  a  group  together,  and  hold  their  interest 
unless  they  have  purposes  more  immediate  than  an  annual  fund-raising 
event.     The  heart  must  become  involved  with  the  purposes  of  the  org 
anization,  and  the  most  effective  method  is  through  sufficiently 
frequent  participation  in  the  work,  which  also  gives  reasons  for 
regular  meetings.. 

2,  However,  the  areas  in  which  volunteers  may  make  a  contribution  are  not 
always  easily  defined.     In  a  hospital,  for  instance,  where  rules  are 
expected,  the  volunteer  needs  to  be  reminded  only  infrequently  that 
she  is  not  a  nurse  or  a  doctor.     But  in  other  kinds  of  organizations, 
board  and  staff  must  carefully  review  their  programs*    There  may  be 
existing  areas  where  volunteers  can  be  used,  or  new  ones  may  be  de 
veloped.     Volunteers  resent  busy  work,  and  are  quick  to  spot  it, 

They  want  to  give  needed  service,  develop  some  skills,  and  add  to 
their  knowledge  and  experience.     But  they  cannot  be  allawed  in  pro. 
fessional  areas,  and  this  must  be  anticipated  and  made  clear.     Some 
volunteers  enjoy  lonely  jobs,  but  most  of  them  enjoy  the  good  com 
panionship  of  others  in  what  they  are  doing. 

3,  Any  job  designated  for  volunteers  must  be  well  back-stopped.     Volun 
teering  is  no  woman's  primary  job,  and  conscientious  as  she  may  be, 
illness  at  horse,  or  some  other  hazard,  may  prevent  her  from  fulfill 
ing  her  obligation, 

T?hen  Board  has  considered  the  foregoing  matters,  and  others  which  may  arise 
lout  of  the  discussion;  when  its  authority  for  creation  of  an  Auxiliary  is  ready  to 
be  added  to  the  By-Laws  (which  should  include  provision  that  Auxiliary  By-Laws, 
iand  future  Amendments,  must  be  accepted  by  this  Board  prior  to  Auxiliary  action), 
it  is  ready  to  name  the  organizational  nucleus,  and  a  Board  Hember  advisor. 

This  nucleus  should  include,  or  should  immediately  recruit,  persons  qualified 


to  act  as: 


1.  Temporary  Chairman  (this  cculd  be  Board  member) 

2,  Membership  Chairman  (and  committee) 

3.  Public  Relations  Chairman  (this  is  the  most  important  area  in  which  the 
Auxiliary  will  work,  and  a  well  qualified  person  is  needed.) 

4,  Service  Chairman  (to  define  further  opportunities  for  volunteer  work 
within  previous  limitations,  set  up  organization,  etc.) 

(Note  ^it  is  simpler,  in  these  crucial  areas,  if  specific  persons  are 

recruited  for  these   soecial    -fobs.      The   hazard*   of   the  vhale 


300 
-4- 

fall-ing  OB  its  face  are  multiplied  greatly  if  key  jobs  are  left  open 
to  chance  in  these* initial  stages.     It  is  easier  to  avoid  the  wrong 
person  seeking  a  job,  if  it's  already  filled.) 

At  this  point,  there  is  three  to  six  months'  work  ahead.    A  series  of  meetings, 
say  every  two  weeks,  should  be  held,  at  which  more  and  more  interested  persons 
should  be  brought  in,  program  reviewed,  etc*     If  membership  is  to  be  elective,  or 
even  if  not,  preparatory  spade- work  by  personal  conversation  Dust  be  done,  in  order 
to  arrive  at  an  adequate  number  of  founding  Auxiliary  Members*     Other  committees 
will  have  to  be  appointed:     By-laws  committee,  Hospitality  Committee  for  first 
general  meeting;  Treasurer  and  Tfays  and  Means  Committee,  etc. ;  and  finally,  a 
Nominating  Committee  to  prepare  slate  of  officers* 

The  first  general  meeting  of  Auxiliary  is  ready  to  be  called  when: 

1.  By- Laws  are  ready  for  adoption. 

2*  Slate  of  Officers  is  ready  for  action. 

3*  Publicity  Chairman  has  prepared  Press  coverage,  and  made  her  contacts. 

4*  Services  are  clearly  defined,  adequately  chaired,  and  ready  to  be  filled. 

5*  Members  have  been  invited  to  join  and  have  had  time  to  accept. 

6.  Immediate  future  plans  are  all  tied  together  and  ready  for  announcement. 

The  first  meeting  cannot  afford  to  leave  anything  to  chance.    The  atmosphere 
of  confidence,  enthusiasm,  and  good  will;  plus  good  exposition  of  the  heart  of  the 
organization's  contribution  to  the  community,  must  be  carefully  planned  for.     The 
Board,  the  Staff,  must  demonstrate  its  wholehearted  support  of  the  Auxiliary 
forever  more. 


Appendix   III  301 

» 

San  Francisco  Examiner,  February  7,  1979 


Caroline  Charles 

i  .  .  . 


Ma  ttie  Jackson 


Women's  commission 
achievement  awards 


By  Mildred  Hamilton 

{  "Hie  long  and  distinguished  community  service  of 
Caroline  M.  Charles  and  Mattie  J.  Jackson  will  be  recognized 
jiext  Wednesday  when  they  receive  the  San  Francisco 
^Commission  on  the  Status  of  Women's  first  awards  for 
Outstanding  achievement 

The  two  will  be  honored  at  a  public  luncheon  at  which 
fclayor  Dianne  Feinstein  will  speak  at  the  Sheraton-Palace 
Hotel. 

•  Charles,  whose  volunteer  organization  leadership  goes 
back  30  years,  has  been  president  of  the  League  of  Women 
Voters  and  the  Rosenberg  Foundation,  board  chairman  of 
KQED,  first  woman  to  chair  the  San  Francisco  Housing 
Authority,  co-founder  of  the  Auxiliary1  to  San  Francisco 
General  Hospital,  member  of  the  Stanford  University  board 
of  trustees  and  noted  lecturer  on  volunteer  services. 

Jackson,  an  international  vice-president  of  the  Interna 
tional  Ladies  Garment  Workers  Union  and  business 
manager  of  its  local  units,  recently  was  appointed  to  a 
second  term  on  Board  of  Permit  Appeals.  In  19715  she  was  the 
first  woman  to  be  elected  the  board  president.  A  member  of 
the  NAACP  and  the  executive  board  of  the  National  Council 
for  Negro  Women,  she  came  to  San  Francisco  as  a  young 
woman,  supported  and  educated  herself  and  worked  her 
way  to  labor  leadership. 

'These  are  the  first  of  many  outstanding  San  Francisco 
women  we  hope  to  recognize  in  the  new  annual  awards," 
said  Catherine  Smallwood,  commission  coordinator.  Informa 
tion  on  luncheon  tickets  is  available  by  calling  4740TOL 
:•  The  Commission  on  the  Status  of  Women,  created  by  dry 
ordinance  in  1975  to  find  and  alleviate  inequalities,  is  now 
located  at  170  Fell  St,  Room  la  Attorney  Mary  Vail  is 
commission  chair,  and  its  members  include  Beverly  Hayon, 
Kathleen  H.  Arnold,  Rosemary  Farac,  Veronica  Hunnicutt, 
Carole  Jan  Lee,  Del  Martin,  Sandy  Ouye,  August  Rothschild 
Jr.  and  H.  Marcia  Smolens. 

Workshops  on  employment,  a  resource  talent  bank  to 


provide  names  for  job  and  board  openings,  and  programs  in 
minority  outreach,  criminal  Justice,  education,  child  care, 
housing,  legislation  and  health  are  among  its  activities. 

"  The  commission,  which  has  200  community  volunteers  on 
Its  committees,  has  achieved  considerable  success  in  reforms 
to  open  more  city  civil  service  jobs  and  promotions  to 
women.  It  has  joined  other  women's  groups  to  work  on  state s 
and  national  legislation,  and  it  now  publishes  Womenews,  a 
quarterly  newsletter  and  clearing  house  on  women's  issues. 
In  1976,  the  Friends  of  the  San  Francisco  Commission  on 
the  Status  of  Women  was  created  as  a  non-profit  charitable 
organization  to  raise  funds  for  development  of  commission 
programs.  Martha  Waddell,  an  investment  firm  accftunt 
executive,  is  its  president  Its  members  worked  wtth  'the 
commission  to  select  the  award  winners  and  plan  the  Feb.  14 
luncheon.  Award  luncheon  co-chairpersons  are  Joan 
Braun,  Jane  McKaskle  Murphy  and  Reg  Murphy. 


Appendix  IV:   Profile  of  Mrs.  Charles,  KQED  Focus,  July,  1979,  p.  44 


302 


THE   BOARD 


•J 


CAROLINE  M.  CHARLES 

She  never  realized  that  what 
she  said  was  so  earth-shaking 


HIGH  UP  ON  our  special  roster  of 
heros  without  whom  KQED  might 
never  have  survived  is  Caroline  M. 
Charles,  chairman  of  the  KQED  Inc. 
board.  1973-76.  What's  unusual  in  this 
is  that  normally  when  we  speak  of 
heroes  who  pulled  us  through  perils 
that  could  have  swamped  this  enter 
prise,  we  are  speaking  of  the/oundfng 
fathers  and  mothers,  whose  deeds  of 
courage,  vision  and  plain  old  hard  work 
transpired  in  earlier  years.  Though 
Caroline  joined  the  KQED  board  in 
1960,  her  period  of  leadership  came 
during  the  turmoil  of  the  early-to-mid 
1970s. 

A  former  lecturer  in  community  ser 
vices  at  Mills  College.  Mrs.  Charles  her 
self  devoted  so  much  time  to  commu 
nity  service  that  It  appears  difficult,  in 
retrospect,  to  understand  how  she  had 
any  time  left  for  KQED.  She  has  been 
president  of  the  League  of  Women 
Voters,  president  of  the  Rosenberg 
Foundation,  a  member  (for  20  years)  of 
the  Stanford  University  board  of  trust 
ees,  co-founder  of  the  Auxiliary  to  San 
Francisco  General  Hospital,  member  of 
the  SF  Advisory  Board  of  Health,  and 
chairman  of  the  SF  Housing  Authority. 

Yet.  demanding  as  these  other  re 
sponsibilities  were,  it's  almost  impossi 
ble  for  those  who  worked  with  her  at 
KQED  to  imagine  that  she  found  time 
for  anything  else  than  KQED.  We  asked 
a  number  of  people  who  worked  with 
Caroline  to  tell  us  what  they  remem 
bered  of  the  experience.  Again  and 
again,  they  spoke  of  how  she  successful 
ly  blends  forcefulness.  leadership,  and  a 
commanding  presence  with  decency, 
friendship  and  a  constructive  perspec 
tive.  Those  who  worked  with  Caroline 
saw  that  blend  in  operation  time  and 
time  again. 

One  example  occurred  in  1973  when 
PBS  was  a  ripe  target  for  the  Nixon 


White  House.  A  historic  meeting  took 
place  In  the  East  attended  by  some  of 
the  lay  leadership  of  PBS  (i.e. ,  represen 
tatives  of  boards  of  directors  of  a 
number  of  public  broadcasting  licens 
ees)  and  the  professional  leadership  of 
PBS  (i.e.,  the  managers  of  many  of  the 
licensees).  The  meeting  was  historic  be 
cause  it  resulted  in  the  statesmanlike 
decision  to  recognize  that  policy-mak 
ing  and  organizational  leadership 
should  rest  with  laymen  rather  than 
with  the  professionals.  Imagine  the  ten 
sions  and  stresses  inherent  in  such  a 
meeting! 

Two  participants  in  the  meeting  were 
particularly  strong-willed  and,  as  the 
meeting  progressed,  hostilities  grew.  As 
the  barbs  flying  between  them  became 
increasingly  sharp.  Caroline  took  them 
aside  and  said.  "Now  you  two  are  good 
friends  of  mine  and  you  are  going  to  be 
good  friends  of  each  other."  Each  of  the 
two  participants  reacted  with  cries  of, 
"No  way!"  Caroline  repeated  her  "pre 
diction."  The  two  combatants  repeated 
their  jibes. 

Caroline  would  not  quit.  She  con 
tinued  to  work  on  them  until  finally  she 
forced  them  to  see  that  they  had  more  In 
common  than  they  had  in  opposition. 
Caroline  finally  got  the  two  people  work 
ing  together  during  that  meeting  and 
during  successive  meetings  on  the 
same  subject,  and  they  ultimately  be 
came  a  close  team,  working  together  in 
public  broadcasting  for  the  ensuing  five 
years.  They  also  became  best  of  friends. 

Another  time,  the  powers-that-be  at 
HEW  had  refused  to  continue  their  part 
of  the  financing  of  Sesame  Street,  an 
Important  public  television  staple. 
Then,  as  now,  the  series  was  funded  by 
the  Office  of  Education,  the  public  tele 
vision  stations  themselves,  and  various 
corporations.  Since  the  federal  money 
was  vital  to  continuation  of  Sesame 
Street,  public  television  made  a  desper 
ate  search  throughout  the  country  for 
somebody  who  could  help. 

Eureka!  They  remembered  Caroline 
Charles.  She  called  "Cap"  Weinberger, 
former  on-the-air  star  and  board 
member  of  KQED  and,  at  that  time.  Sec 
retary  of  HEW.  Soon  the  decision  was 
reversed.  Sesame  Street  was  funded. 
When  PBS  tried  to  find  out  how  this 
happened,  they  were  told  by  an  HEW 
source  that  "some  little  old  lady  from 


303 


San  Francisco  called  and  gave  him  (Cap) 
hell." 

Another  aspect  of  Caroline  was  as  a 
highly  skilled  social  leader  in  the  best 
sense  of  that  phrase.  Once,  at  rather  a 
formal  gathering  at  her  house  —  with 
12  or  14  guests  from  the  worlds  of  arts, 
social  improvement,  politics,  and  pub 
lic  TV  —  Caroline  took  over  the  conver 
sation  and  asked  each  guest  to  report 
what  he  or  she  was  most  proud  of  hav 
ing  accomplished  in  the  recent  past.  It 
was  an  entertaining  and  stimulating 
tour  de  force.  It's  impossible  to  think  of 
another  hostess  who  could  have 
brought  it  off. 

In  1974,  Edmund  Ball  (Muncie,  In 
diana).  Sid  James  (Washington,  DC) 
and  Caroline  Charles  were  co-vice 

chairmen  under  Ralph  Rogers  of  the 
PBS  board.  It  was  one  of  the  most  im 
portant  and  critical  formative  periods 
that  had  faced  public  broadcasting. 
Caroline's  role  was  large.  She  did  a  great 
deal  to  smooth  troubled  waters.  Her  wit. 
determination,  people  skills,  and  untir 
ing  energy  made  her  unique,  as  Ed  Ball 
remembers. 

She  made  2-3  trips  to  Washington 
monthly,  and  to  save  working  time  al 
ways  took  the  coach  "red  eye"  flights. 
Even  then,  she  apologized  for  the  ex 
penses  she  was  generating.  Finally  the 
staff  and  other  board  members  said: 
"Caroline,  if  you  chartered  a  private 
plane  for  each  trip,  we  would  be  glad  to 
pay  the  costs.  Even  that  wouldn't  com 
pensate  for  your  value  to  us."  And  when 
they  apologized  for  scheduling  too  many 
meetings,  she  would  answer.  "It's  not 
an  imposition  at  all.  It's  a  privilege  to  be 
useful  to  this  program." 

At  one  point.  Caroline,  rushing  from 
important  meeting  to  important  meet 
ing  —  she  was  usually  chairman  or  pres 
ident  —  asked  the  time  and  told  it  was 
noon.  Caroline  immediately  stopped  at 
a  San  Francisco  gas  station,  prevailed 
upon  a  long  distance  supervisor,  and 
was  plugged  into  a  major  nationwide 
con  ference  call  involvi  ng  many  of  public 
TV's  moguls.  Only  Caroline  would  have 
arranged  this  and  then  managed  to 
keep  up  her  end  of  those  telephone 
negotiations  while  standing  on  the 
sidewalk. 


One  of  Caroline's  passions  in  the  days 
before  "good  communication"  had  be 
come  a  synonym  for  godliness,  was  for 
improved  communication  between 
KQED's  board,  members,  staff,  viewers, 
and  critics.  Caroline's  stewardship 
spanned  the  time  when  labor  problems, 
membership  revolts,  board  dissension, 
community  pressures,  fights  over  pro 
gram  philosophy,  housing  problems 
and  national  public  TV  controversies 
had  brought  KQED's  environment  to 
the  boiling  point. 

Despite  pressures,  confrontations, 
and  pickets  (at  her  home  as  well  as 
around  KQED's  studios)  and  despite 
enormous  and  wearing  demands, 
Madam  Chairman  maintained  her  con 
victions  and  sought  for  understanding 
among  the  angry,  often  disparate 
groups.  During  those  trying  days 
Caroline  Charles  particularly  welcomed 
reminders  of  the  honorary  title  be 
stowed  on  her  in  many  times,  at  many 
places,  by  many  persons:  "San  Fran 
cisco's  Outstanding  Volunteer." 

On  February  9th,  1976.  Caroline  was 
presented  The  Public  Broadcasting  Ser 
vice  Distinguished  Citizen  Award,  "for 
her  outstanding  contribution  to  the  ad 
vancement  of  public  television  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States." 

Not  that  she  took  herself  too  seriously. 
Once,  during  the  '50s.  Caroline  was  lec 
turing  the  San  Francisco  Junior  League 
on  "How  to  Be  a  Better  Board  Member," 
when  the  largest  earthquake  in  years 
shook  the  meeting  room  .  .  .  hard. 
There  was  fear  and  tension  among 
those  present,  but  calm  prevailed  when 
Caroline,  scarcely  missing  a  beat,  said, 
"Well.  1  never  realized  my  words  were  so 
earth-shaking." 

Toward  the  end  of  1976,  Caroline's 
world  shook  again  as  she  was  forced 
Into  semi-retirement  by  a  stroke.  But 
today,  as  always,  she  keeps  up  with  her 
friends  and  her  causes,  writing  spirited 
notes  from  her  Russian  Hill  eyrie  and 
sallying  out  into  the  world  on  selected 
occasions,  most  recently  to  receive  an 
award  for  distinguished  service  from 
the  Auxiliary  of  the  San  Francisco 
Commission  on  the  Status  of  Women. 

Complledjrom  thefond  recollections  of 
Howard  Nemerovski.  Ed  Phtster.  Jona 
than  Rice.  Edmund  Ball.  Germatne  Q. 
Wong.  Ellle  Heller.  Kitty  Lee  and  Jane 
Roe. 


304 


TAPE  GUIDE  —  Caroline  Moore  Charles 


Interview  1:   1  October  1974 
tape  1,  side  A 
tape  1,  side  B 

Interview  2:   16  October  1974 

tape  2,  side  A 

tape  2,  side  B 

tape  3,  side  A  [side  B  not  recorded] 

Interview  3:   11  November  1974 

tape  4,  side  A 

tape  4,  side  B 

tape  5,  side  A  [side  B  not  recorded] 

Interview  4:   19  September  1977 
tape  6,  side  A 

Interview  5:   3  October  1977 
tape  6,  side  B 
tape  7,  side  A 

last  part  of  tape  8,  side  A,  and  all  of  side  B,  recorded 

1  November  1977,  located  here  for  continuity 
tape  8,  side  B 

Interview  6:   10  October  1977 
tape  7,  side  B 

Interview  7:   1  November  1977 
tape  8,  side  A 

end  tape  8,  side  A  [the  rest  of  the  tape  has  become  the  beginning 
of  Chapter  11,  p.  150] 

Interview  8:   8  November  1977 

tape  9,  side  B  [side  A  is  a  background  interview  with  attorney 

Howard  Nemerovski  on  working  with  Mrs.  Charles  on  the  KQED  board 

of  directors] 
tape  10,  side  A 

Interview  9:   18  January  1978 
tape  11,  side  A 

Interview  10:   24  January  1978 

tape  11,  side  B 

tape  12,  side  A  [side  B  not  recorded] 

Interview  11:   9  March  1978 
tape  13,  side  A 
tape  13,  side  B 

Interview  12:   17  March  1978 
tape  14,  side  A 

Interview  13:   30  March  1978 
tape  14,  side  B 


1 

1 
18 

35 
35 
52 
68 

78 

78 

93 

109 

117 
117 

131 
131 
146 

150 
162 

164 
164 

180 
180 

183 

184 


200 

205 
205 

221 
221 
236 

241 

241 
259 

261 
261 

278 
278 


305 


INDEX  ~  CAROLINE  CHARLES 


Actors'  Workshop,   269 

aging,   280-282,  287 

Alioto,  Joseph,   266-267,  280 

American  Cancer  Society,   143 

American  Friends  Service  Committee  [AFSC],   74 

Arendt,  Hannah,   123 

Ashe,  Elizabeth,   124 

attorneys, 

and  community  service,   94 

and  philanthropy,   55-56 
Audubon  Society,   55-56 


Bank  of  America,   80,  82 

blacks.   See  Negroes 

Board  of  Health,  San  Francisco.   See  San  Francisco,  Board  of  Health 

Boas,  Roger,   291 

Boutelle,  Betty,   103 

Brandin,  Alf,   218 

Bransten,  Louise  Rosenberg,   32n,  36-38 

Brawner,  Fuller,   248 

Bridges,  Harry,   12 

Brooks,  Thomas,   159,  291 

Brown  Act,   163 

Bush,  Martha,   175 

business, 

and  philanthropy,   80-82,  110 
Butler,  Sheana,   169 


California  Civic  League,  San  Francisco  Center,   152-156 

California  Youth  Authority  [CYA] ,   33,  87 

Campfire  Girls,   12,  89,  106 

Garden,  Mae,   151 

Catholic  church,   23,  31 

Center  for  Community  Development,   75 

Central  Valley.   See  San  Joaquin  Valley 


306 


Chance,  Ruth,   39-40,  47,  49-50,  52-54,  60,  65-68,  70-75,  81,  84-86,  89-92, 

98-106,  111-112 
Chandler,  Norman,   22 

Charles,  Allan,   7-8,  11-12,  15,  93-95,  99 
Charles,  Caroline  Moore  [Mrs.  Allan],  1,  passim 

children,   118,  125,  215 

religion,   134-135,  268 

parents,  1-5,  9,  35,  144,  147,  225,  232 

politics,   161,  282-283 

sorority,   201-202 

beliefs,   265-268 
Chavez,  Cesar,   76 
chicanos.   See  Mexican-Americans 
child  abuse,   92-93,  171 

Children's  Hospital,  San  Francisco,   166,  290 
Chinese,  in  San  Francisco,   280 
Church,  Thomas,   257 
civil  rights,   30 
Clausen,  Tom,   80,  82 
Clifton,  Olga,   130,  196,  200,  286 
Coldwell,  Cedric,   213,  220 
communism,  fears  of,   37-39,  41-45,  109 
Community  Chest,   156,  186.   See  also  United  Bay  Area  Crusade,  United  Fund, 

United  Way 

community  development,   74-75 
Community  Research  Associates,   53-54,  63 
Congress,  U.S.,   272,  274 

Daniels,  Arlene,   136,  180,  257,  288 

D'Anneo,  Jean  Charles,   215 

Davoran,  Mrs.,   92 

Day,  Jim,   245,  249,  263,  272 

Delaney,  Miss,   152 

Deutsch,  Monroe,   34,  45,  231 

DiGiorgio,  Robert,   76,  80,  82 

Dinkelspiel,  Lloyd,   22,  25,  222,  224 

Dobbs,  Harold,   291-292 

Doolittle,  Jean,   14-15 

Doyle,  Morris,   223-224 

draft  counseling,   73-74 

Duniway,  Ben,   73,  100,  229 

education,  42-43 

educational  television,   244,  257,  261,  264.   See  also  KQED,  Public  Broadcasting 

Service 
Edwards,  Paul,   34,  40 


307 


Elkus,  Charles  de  Young,  Sr.,   32-33,  36,  38-40,  44-45,  47-49,  52-53,  56,  63-67, 

71,  86 

employment,   44,  110 
Episcopal  church,   34 

Faber,  Mrs.  Harold,   176-177 

Fleishhacker,  Mortimer,   248-249 

Ford  Foundation,   71,  255,  272 

foundations,   33,  38,  47,  53,  56,  68,  73-74,  84,  88 

and  community  relations,   62,  70,  72 

criticisms  of,   37-39,  76,  87-88,  109-111 

national,   46,  71-72,  79-82,  85,  101-103,  255,  272 

organizations  of,   103 

payout,   84,  91 

publications,   50,  53 

regulation  of,   87-88,  110 

see  also  Rosenberg  Foundation 
Franklin,  Bruce,   226 
Fuller,  Farmer,   40 

Gamble,  Babe,   175 

Ganyard,  Leslie,   32-33,  36,  38,  46,  48,  52,  54,  65-69,  84 

Geiger,  J.C.,   158 

Girl  Scouts,   13,  89 

Goodan,  May,   22,  24,  222-223 

government,  federal, 

funding,   30,  44,  48,  52,  53,  88,  91 

and  volunteers,   149,  286-287 
government,  local.   See  San  Francisco 
government,  state 

grants  to,   87 

regulation  by,   37 

youth  programs,   112,  166 
Guggenhime,  Richard,   40,  64-65,  224-225,  231 

Harris,  David,   227 
Hayes,  Denis,   227 
Hewlett,  William,   68 
Holton,  Karl,   33,  48,  86-87 
housing, 

public,   30 

self-help,   73-74 

in  San  Francisco,   279-282 
Housing  Authority,  San  Francisco,   160-163 


308 


Institute  of  Public  Relations,   14,  41-42 

International  Institute,   94 

International  Longshoremen  and  Warehousemen's  Union  [ILWU],   12 

James,  William,   267 

Junior  League,  San  Francisco,   32,  133,  143-145 

Kane,  Eneas,   162 

KQED  television,   29-30,  41,  44,  108-109,  245,  251-252,  254,  257-258,  261,  263 

board  of  directors,   244,  248-252,  257-259 

Newsroom  program,   245-248,  250,  252,  254,  264,  273 

funding,   253-254 

auction,   256-257 

and  commercial  television,   262-264 

ratings,   264-265 

labor,   12 

agricultural,   48,  76,  109 

KQED  strike,   44,  108 

unions,   160-161 
Ladies'  Home  Journal,   146 
League  of  Women  Voters,   141,  144,  180-181,  279,  283 

San  Francisco,   18-19,  21,  24-25,  32,  39,  150-156,  159,  193 
Life  of  the  Mind.   123 
Lillick,  Ira,   214 

Lipman,  Ruth  [Mrs.  E.  C.],   223   li   i.^ 

Luttgens,  Leslie  [Mrs.  William],   21,  2$,  165,  167-169,  173-175,  191 
Luttgens,  Dr.  William,   165 
Lyman,  Jing  [Mrs.  Richard],   236-238 
Lyman,  Richard,   236-237 

Mack,  Charlotte,   34 

Mailliard,  Charlotte  [Mrs.  J.  W. ,  Jr.],   171 

Mailliard,  Ward,   40-45,  55-56 

March  of  Dimes,   289 

May,  John  R. ,   68 

McKinnon,  Harold,   41 

McLaughlin,  Emma  Moffat,   13-17,  20-21,  35,  39-42,  119,  152,  183,  202-203,  246 

men,  as  volunteers,   190 

Merrill,  Fred,   185,  189 

Miller,  Dr.  Jeanne  Baker,   139,  199 

Mills  College,   13,  78-79,  84 

board  of  trustees,   64,  99 

community  service  class,   117-119,  121-124,  126-128,  130-143,  296 


309 


minorities, 

and  foundations,   80,  88,  108-109 

in  San  Francisco,   279-282 

see  also  Negroes,  Chicanos,  race  relations 
Moffatt,  Henrietta,   16 
Moore,  Dick,   249-250 

Moore  family,   1-2,  4-5,  9,  35,  144,  147,  225,  232 
Mosgrove,  Alicia,   152 


Nathan,  Harriet  [Mrs.  Edward],   155 
Negroes,   116 

grants  to,   167 
Nevers,  Ernie,   8 
Nixon,  Richard  M. ,   109,  272-274 
non-profit  organizations, 

board  of  directors,   24,  35,  95-96,  105-109 

evaluation  of,   57-58 

funding,   52,  83,  167-175 

staff,   99,  147,  191,  193 

structure,   18,  20,  25,  27-28 

starting,   167-174 

see  also  KQED,  League  of  Women  Voters,  Rosenberg  Foundation,   Ford 
Foundation,  Stanford  Hospital  Auxiliary 


Osterhaus,  William,   44 


Pacific  Oaks  School,   105 

Pacific  Telephone  Company,   80,  82 

Packard,  David,   214 

Parsons,  Edward,   33-34 

philanthropy,   111,  114-115,  159-161,  189 

Phleger,  Herman,   212-214 

Planned  Parenthood,   167 

Pomeroy,  Florette,   146 

Presbyterian  Hospital,  San  Francisco,   105,  187-190 

Public  Broadcasting  Service,   257-258,  271-274 

Public  Dance  Hall  Committee,  San  Francisco,   150-153 

public  television,   109,  174 

management,   262-264 

see  also  KQED,  Public  Broadcasting  Service 


race  relations,   122-123,  187-188 
religion, 

and  community  affairs,   112-113,  120 
Republican  Party,  San  Francisco  County  Central  Committee,   282 


310 


Resource  Exchange,   160-161,  168,  175,  189 

Rice,  Jon,   246-247,  261,  263 

Roberts,  David,   242 

Rogers,  Dorothy  [Mrs.  William  Lister  Rogers],   93,  120 

Rogers,  Ralph,   272-277 

Rosenberg,  Max,   111,  117 

Rosenberg  Foundation,   46,  52,  60,  62,  70,  72,  85-86,  90-91,  102,  110-156, 
158,  160,  162-171,  180,  182,  184-185,  188,  244 
bylaws,   112 

grants,   37,  48-58,  74-81,  84-94,  112 

staff,   32,  39,  46,  50,  52,  60,  65-73,  86,  99,  101,  103 
trustees,   32-40,  45,  59-66,  86,  88,  98,  100,  104-107 

Roth,  Lurline  [Mrs.  William],   195 

Roth,  William  Matson,   189-190,  204 


St.  Joseph's  Hospital,  San  Francisco,   196 

Sanders,  Harry,   216,  218 

San  Francisco,  city  and  county 

Board  of  Health,   157-161 

chief  administrative  office,   159,  195 

Housing  Authority,   108-109,  160-163,  278-283 

housing  commission,   186 

housing,   279-282 

minorities  in,   279-282 

Mission  District,   162 

San  Francisco  Foundation,   129,  160,  181-183,  193,  197 
San  Francisco  News,   113 

San  Francisco  Planning  and  Urban  Renewal  Association  [SPUR] ,   97 
San  Francisco  State  College,  169 
San  Joaquin  Valley, 

agricultural  labor  in,   155,  188 

fever  in,   128 

foundation  grants  in,   116-118,  125,  127-128,  154-155 
San  Mateo  County,   132 

Santa  Barbara,  California,  child  abuse  program,   171 
School  Resource  Volunteers,  San  Francisco,   129 
Shelley,  John,   108,  161,  279 
Simpson,  Anne,   172 

Sloss,  Eleanor  Fleishhacker,   113,  142-144,  177,  179 
social  change,   114-115,  129,  137,  163,  172,  189-190 
social  work,   35-36,  55,  63,  112.   See  also  volunteer  work 
Sorenson,  Roy,   53,  63 
Sox,  Ellis,   158,  160 


311 


Spaeth,  Carl,   40,  71 
Spence,  Homer,   23,  28,  222 
Stanford  Hospital, 

auxiliary,   25-26,  158,  167-180 

move  to  Palo  Alto,   25,  164-167,  170 
Stanford  Research  Institute,   226 
Stanford  University,   2,  4,  6,  71,  84,  85,  138,  148,  269 

alumni  association,   23,  230,  238 

board  of  trustees,   9,  21-24,  28,  29-40,  77,  96,  108,  166,  184-187,  189, 
212-213,  220,  227-228,  235-241,  268 

building  and  grounds  committee,   214-221 
nominating  committee,   221-224 
funding,   255 

staff,   99 

medical  school,  25,  164-167,  170 

PACE  campaign,   211-213,  221,  223 

land  development  committee,   212-213 

students  on  trustee  committees,   234-235 

minority  admissions,   234 

student  unrest,   225-228,  231-234,  239 

faculty,   217,  226,  229-231,  235 
Sterling,  Anne  [Mrs.  Wallace],  231,  236-238 

Sterling,  Wallace,  40,  166,  170,  213-215,  218,  220,  230-231,  237-238 
Stratford,  Ursula,   171,  175 
Sutton,  Maude  [Mrs.  Effingham  Sutton],   39,  152 


Teilhard  de  Chardin,   265-268,  293 

Telegraph  Hill  Neighborhood  Association,   123-124 

Travelers'  Aid  Society,   112 

Tucker,  Phyllis  [Mrs.  Nion],   195-196,  203 


un-American  activities  committee,  California,   37,  39 
United  States,  bicentennial,   29 
U.S.  Leasing  Corporation,   81 
University  of  California,   34,  48 

loyalty  oath,   41,  45 

Prytanean,   46 

at  San  Francisco,   165,  266 
University  of  San  Francisco,   42-43 
University  of  the  Pacific,   187,  189 


Van  Loben  Sels  Foundation,   103 
Vierbrock,  Grace  and  Frank,   3 
volunteers,   13,  20-21,  128-129 

in  community  service,   28-29,  25,  79,  94-95 

leadership,   27,  120,  155-157 

training,   121-143 


312 


volunteers , 

varieties  of,   77,  148-149 

and  federal  government,   149,  286-287 

in  hospitals,   164,  166-167,  193-195 

rewards,   176,  197-200 

problems  with,   178-179,  182 

career  exploration,   180 

men  as,   190,  276-277,  279 

boards  of  directors,   269-270 

volunteer  work,  principles  of,  120,  122-123,  126-130,  133-134,  136-137, 
141-143,  258 

Walker,  Brooks,  Jr.,   81 

Walter,  Stephen,   279 

Warnecke,  Jack,   217 

Watts,  Malcolm,   49,  74,  104 

Wente,  Carl,   76 

White,  Lynn,   117-118,  121,  146,  285 

Wilbur,  Brayton,   41 

Wilbur,  Ray  Lyman,   14,  42 

Wilson,  Kirke,   89,  103 

women, 

in  community  service,      14,    17-21,    120-122,    124-125 

and  education,   2-4,  6-7,  79,  118,  121-123,  126 

and  foundations,   34,  52,  63,  67,  71,  92 

as  leaders,   10,  21-24,  120,  219,  222-223,  236 

working  with,   96 

and  families,   122,  126 

women's  issues,   124-125,  135,  148-149,  151-152,  158,  163,  215,  219,  239-240,  243 
World  Affairs  Council,  Northern  California,   42,  117,  119-120 
Wyckoff,  Florence  R.  [Mrs.  Hubert],   48 

youth, 

attitudes,   110 
leadership,   23,  89,  111 
problems  of,   92-93,  157 
working  with,   78-83 

Zellerbach  Foundation,   103 


Gabrielle  Morris 

B.A.  in  economics,  Connecticut  College,  Nev 
London;  independent  study  in  journalism, 
creative  vriting. 

Historian,  U.S.  Air  Force  in  England,  covering 
Berlin  Air  Lift,  military  agreements,  personnel 
studies,  1951-52. 

Chief  of  radio,  TV,  public  relations,  major 
New  England  department  store;  copy  chief,  net 
work  radio  and  TV  station  in  Hartford,  Connec 
ticut;  freelance  theatrical  publicity  and 
historical  articles,  1953-55- 

Research,  interviewing,  editing,  community 
planning  in  child  guidance ,  mental  health , 
school  planning,  civic  unrest,  for  University 
of  California,  Berkeley  Unified  School  District, 
Bay  Area  Social  Planning  Council,  League  of 
Women  Voters,  1956-70. 

Research,  interviewing,  editing  on  state 
administration,  civic  affairs,  and  industry, 
Regional  Oral  History  Office,  The  Bancroft 
Library,  University  of  California  at  Berkeley, 
1970-present . 


m